THE  ROBERT  E.  COWAN  COLLECTION 

I'RESKXTRD    TO    THK 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

KY 

C,  P.  HUNTINGTON 

cJUK 

Accession  No  /6~(o& /      Class  No, 


REVIEW 


OF 


THE  RELATIONS 


BETWEEN 


THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  MEXICO, 


AND 


OF   THE   CLAIMS 


OF 


CITIZENS  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  AGAINST  MEXICO. 


BY  RICHARD  S.  COXE. 


NEW  YORK: 

WILSON    &    CO.,    15    SPRUCE    STREET, 
1846. 


S  .    XV  .    BENEDICT, 
Stereotyper  and  Printer,  I  6  Spruce  Street. 


»'•)> 

TEXAS. 


INTRODUCTION. 

IN  presenting  the  following  papers  to  the  public  in  their  present  shape, 
it  seemed  proper  to  accompany  them  with  a  brief  exposition  of  the  cir 
cumstances  in  which  they  originated,  and  of  the  reasons  to  which  they 
owe  their  existence.  They  have  already  appeared  in  the  columns  of  a 
newspaper — the  first  series  in  the  Richmond  Enquirer,  and  the  residue  in 
the  Union.  The  parties  at  whose  instance  they  were  prepared,  have 
judged  it  expedient  to  republish  them ;  while  others  have  concurred  in 
this  design,  under  the  impression  that  they  embodied,  in  a  condensed 
form,  much  valuable  information  upon  topics  of  general  importance. 
The  present  aspect  of  the  relations  between  the  United  States  and  Mexico 
is  full  of  interest.  Whether  or  not  there  will  be  a  formal  declaration  of 
war,  seems  yet  to  be  a  matter  of  uncertainty ;  but  whether  that  event 
should  or  should  not  occur,  the  affairs  of  the  two  governments  have 
reached  a  point,  and  assumed  a  character,  which  imperatively  demand 
that  the  subjects  of  controversy,  which  have  so  long  existed,  should  be 
brought  to  a  definite  settlement.  The  causes  of  complaint  have  been  of 
long  standing,  and  of  an  irritating  nature.  The  amicable  feelings  which 
once  bound  the  two  nations  together,  have  been  obliterated.  Mutual 
estrangement  has  succeeded,  and  terms  of  recrimination  have  been  ex 
changed,  rousing  on  either  side  the  angry  passions  of  the  respective 
parties.  It  is  not  possible  much  longer  to  postpone  the  adjustment  of 
these  controveries.  They  must  be  terminated  through  the  instrumentality 
of  war,  or  by  amicable  arrangement;  The  number  and  character  of  the 
reclamations  of  the  parties  seem  to  preclude  the  possibility  of  a  pacific 
settlement.  The  claims  of  citizens  of  the  United  States,  for  remuneration 
for  alleged  inlractions  of  their  rights  of  person  and  property,  cannot  be 
estimated  at  a  smaller  amount  than  ten  millions  of  dollars.  The  charac 
ter  of  the  outrages  in  which  these  claims  originated  has  imposed  upon  the 
government  the  imperative  obligation  to  demand,  and,  if  necessary,  to 
enforce,  their  liquidation.  Every  day  swells  the  amount  of  compensa 
tion  to  which  the  parries  are  entitled,  and  increases  the  incapacity  of 
Mexico  to  provide  for  their  payment.  They  must  either  be  adjusted  and 
paid,  or  tamely  relinquished.  The  latter  alternative,  involving  a  renun 
ciation  of  every  national  duty,  and  the  violation  of  the  most  positive  na 
tional  pledges,  cannot,  for  a  moment  be  anticipated.  It  may  be  assumed 


as  a  positive  certainty,  that  the  payment  must  be  voluntarily  made,  or  en 
forced  by  all  the  power  of  the  nation.  It  is  unnecessary  to  state  that  vol 
untary  payment  by  Mexico,  in  any  form,  or  to  any  extent,  is  utterly 
hopeless. 

In  addition  to  every  other  impediment  which,  for  many  years,  has  in 
terposed  to  prevent  Mexico  from  doing  justice  to  the  injured  citizens  of 
the  United  States,  she  has  herself,  within  the  last  few  months,  found 
either  substantial  causes  of  complaint  against  our  own  government,  in  its 
proceedings  and  measures  in  relation  to  Texas,  or  at  least  pretexts  upon 
which  she  asserts  that  the  balance  of  injury  is  on  her  side.  She  alleges, 
that,  in  originally  populating  Texas  with  our  own  citizens,  in  the  sever 
ance  of  that  State  from  the  residue  of  the  republic,  and  finally  in  annex 
ing  her  to  our  Union,  we  have  violated  every  principle  by  which  one 
nation  should  regulate  its  intercourse  with  its  neighbors,  trampled  upon 
all  the  obligations  of  solemn  treaties,  outraged  the  most  clearly  defined 
rights  of  Mexico,  and  sacrificed  justice  and  equity  upon  the  altar  of  an 
unscrupulous  and  grasping  spirit  of  self-aggrandizement. 

With  such  discordant  views  of  their  mutual  rights  and  obligations,  it  is 
idle  to  hope  that  the  two  parties  can  arrive  at  an  amicable  and  pacific  ad 
justment  of  their  differences.  For  either  to  yield,  would  be  to  submit, 
without  a  struggle,  to  all  the  consequences  of  an  unsuccessful  war,  and 
to  abandon  every  ground  which  has  been  deliberately  arid  publicly  as 
sumed.  The  American  government  cannot  retrace  its  steps.  It  cannot 
annul  the  compact  by  which  Texas  has  become  "  bone  of  our  bone,  and 
flesh  of  our  flesh."  It  cannot  admit  that  its  conduct  merits  the  harsh 
epithets  which  have  been  applied  to  it  by  Mexico  and  her  friends.  As 
little  can  she  retract  what  she  has  so  repeatedly  urged  on  the  subject  of 
the  claims  of  her  citizens  for  remuneration  and  indemnification.  She  has 
proclaimed  that,  in  the  perpetration  of  the  outrages  of  which  she  com 
plains,  Mexico  has  violated  our  just  rights,  and  that  it  is  the  paramount 
duty  of  the  government  to  afford  ample  protection  to  her  citizens,  and  to 
enforce,  if  necessary,  with  all  the  power  of  the  nation,  full  compensation 
for  the  wrongs  they  have  sustained  from  a  foreign  power.  She  has  sanc 
tified  and  solemnized  the  obligation  growing  out  of  the  relation  of  govern 
ment  and  citizen,  by  the  most  deliberate  assurances  that  this  obligation 
is  recognized,  and  the  most  distinct  pledges  that  his  duty  shall  be  fulfilled. 

In  this  posture  of  things,  it  seems  vain  to  expect  that  specific  relations 
can  long  subsist  between  the  two  nations.  Each  professes  to  have 
grounds  of  complaint  against  the  other,  which  it  asserts  to  be  just  and 
reasonable  ;  and  each  has  pledged  itself  to  maintain  its  rights  at  every 
hazard.  Temporary  causes  may  intervene,  and  prevent  an  immediate 
resort  to  arms  by  either  power  ;  but  the  causes  of  war  cannot  be  removed, 
and  they  must  continue  to  increase  in  number  and  to  augment  in  strength, 
till  they  bear  down  every  barrier  which  wisdom  or  policy  may  interpose 
to  prevent  the  final  catastrophe. 

Such  being  the  relations  at  present  subsisting  between  the  two  nations, 
and  such  their  probable  issue,  it  is  incumbent  upon  every  citizen  of  the 


United  States  to  inform  himself  of  the  true  merits  of  the  controversy,  and 
to  lend  his  aid,  however  feeble  that  may  be,  in  enlightening  the  public 
mind  upon  the  subject.  His  country  and  his  government,  have  been  made 
the  objects  of  the  most  severe  denunciation,  not  only  by  the  antagonist 
party,  but  by  many  of  our  own  citizens,  whose  character  and  position  confer 
upon  them  extensive  influence.  The  acts  of  Mexico  have  been  vindicated  ^ 
or  palliated,  while  the  conduct  of  the  United  States  has  been  violently  con 
demned.  It  is  equally  our  right  and  our  duty  to  examine  the  subject,  and 
to  determine,  in  the  spirit  of  justice,  stimulated  but  not  blinded  by  the 
impulses  of  patriotism,  whether  we  are  as  a  nation  guilty  or  not  guilty  of 
the  crimes  laid  to  our  charge. 

It  is  the  purport  and  design  of  the  following  papers  to  examine  and  dis 
cuss  this  interesting  question.  The  result  to  which  the  writer's  mind  has 
been  brought,  will  be  apparent  on  perusing  what  he  has  written.  Enter 
taining  the  fullest  confidence  in  these  conclusions  he  submits  them  to 
the  candid  consideration  of  his  countrymen,  of  all  parties  and  of  all  locali 
ties,  with  a  firm  assurance  in  his  own  mind,  as  well  as  of  the  truth  of  the 
facts  which  he  has  stated,  as  of  the  validity  of  the  inferences  which  he 
has  deduced.  It  may  be  permitted  him  to  add,  that,  had  his  investiga 
tions  conducted  him  to  a  different  result,  and  convinced  him  that  his 
country  had  merited  the  reproaches  which  have  been  cast  upon  her — that 
her  conduct  had  been  disgraced  by  injustice  to  a  weaker  neighbor — that 
her  character  had  been  sullied  by  a  propensity  to  rapine  and  to  robbery — 
he  would  have  mourned  in  silence  over  the  tarnished  honor  of  his 
nation.  He  would  have  preferred,  like  the  virtuous  son  of  the  ancient 
Patriarch,  rather  to  have  cast  a  mantle  over  the  nakedness  of  a  beloved 
parent,  than  with  sacrilegious  hands  to  have  exposed  it  to  the  contemptu 
ous  gaze  of  a  cold  and  unfeeling  world. 

It  is  now  somewhat  more  than  five  years  since  the  writer  was  employed 
professionally  to  conduct  the  cases  of  several  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
who  had  claims  upon  Mexico,  growing  out  of  injuries  inflicted  upon  them 
by  the  hands,  or  under  the  sanction,  of  public  functionaries  of  Mexico.  A 
convention  had  recently  been  consummated  between  the  two  powers, 
providing  for  the  organization  of  a  board  of  commissioners  to  examine  and 
adjust  claims  of  this  description.  A  full  intercourse  with  the  intelligent 
gentlemen  who  were  his  clients,  and  subsequently  with  others,  supplied 
a  mass  of  information  as  to  the  history  and  present  state  of  Mexico,  which 
with  such  published  works,  as  were  accessible,  and  a  large  number  of  writ 
ten  documents,  (including  the  entire  diplomatic  correspondence  between 
the  two  goverments  which  had  been  communicated  to  Congress),  fur 
nished  the  means  of  indulging  a  curiosity  to  trace,  in  detail,  the  entire 
history  of  the  relations  which  had  subsisted  between  the  two  nations. 

A  mass  of  materials  was  thus  accumulated,  which,  under  less  favorable 
circumstances,  could  not  readily  be  collected  by  a  single  individual ;  and 
which  would  probably  have  been  neglected  by  any  one  who  had  not  been 
stimulated  by  collateral  considerations  to  avail  himself  of  the  opportunities 
thus  afforded.  The  interest  which  originally  prompted  to  the  task,  was 


6 

daily  increased  in  pursuing  the  investigation  of  the  subject.  Those  sen 
sibilities  to  the  honor  and  dignity  of  his  country,  which  it  behooves  every 
American  citizen  sedulously  to  cherish ; — that  indignation,  which  the 
recital  of  gross  and  unprovoked  wrong  is  calculated  to  inspire ; — that 
sympathy,  which  severe  and  unmerited  suffering  awakens — were  all  pow 
erfully  roused  by  the  continually  recurring  narratives  of  Mexican  perfidy, 
rapine,  and  cruelty.  It  was  manifest  that  the  national  honor  had  been 
wantonly  and  systematically  assailed  ; — that  the  lives,  the  property,  and 
the  rights  of  our  citizens  had  been  endangered  and  violated  ; — that  the 
laws  of  nations  had  been  continually  trampled  upon,  and  the  most  solemn 
and  precise  treaty  stipulations  daily  disregarded.  Such  appeared  not  as 
insulated  and  occasional  incidents,  but  as  the  uniform  and  unvaried  cha 
racter  of  the  relations  which  had  subsisted  between  two  contiguous 
nations.  So  few  and  remote  were  the  exceptions,  that  the  conduct  of 
Mexico  towards  American  citizens  may  almost  literally  be  characterized 
as  "  nulla  virtute  redemption." 

While  such  were  the  traits  exhibited  by  the  one  party,  the  deportment 
of  the  United  States,  as  well  government  as  people,  manifested  the  most 
striking  contrast.  It  had  been  marked  throughout  by  magnanimity  and 
/orbearance,  by  generosity  and  patient  endurance.  During  the  period 
when  Spain  was  rent  by  the  convulsions  which  upheaved  Europe  from 
its  foundations — when  the  struggles  between  the  emperor  of  France  and 
the  Spanish  nation  were  exhausting  the  strength  and  resources  of  the 
parent  country,  as  well  as  of  her  American  colonies — the  United  States 
were  presented  with  the  most  favorable  opportunities  for  displaying  and 
gratifying  that  lust  of  aggrandizement  which  has  at  times  been  most  un- 

/  scrupulously  and  falsely  attributed  to  the  people  and  government  of  this 
Republic.  There  was  no  necessity  to  invent  or  fabricate  pretexts  for 
plunging  into  hostilities,  and  wrenching  by  force,  from  the  impotent  hands 
of  Spain,  her  most  valuable  territories,  as  an  indemnity  for  the  wrongs  she 
had  inflicted,  and  payment  of  the  remuneration  which  she  justly  owed. 
We  had  many  and  aggravated  causes  which  would  have  justified  a  resort 
to  war  ;  and  the  consequences  of  a  declaration  of  hostilities  could  scarcely 
be  regarded  as  doubtful.  Our  own  will  would  have  fixed  the  only  limit 
to  our  power  to  appropriate  to  ourselves  the  Spanish  dominions  on  this 

(  continent.  Instead  of  resorting  to  such  measures  of  redressing  our 
wrongs,  we  patiently  waited  until  the  termination  of  the  great  wars  in. 
Europe  left  Spain,  disembarrassed  from  this  tremendous  conflict,  which 
for  years  had  been  waging  in  every  corner  of  her  realm,  free  to  listen  to 
our  solicitations  for  justice.  So  far  from  pressing  upon  Spain  in  her  hour 
of  need,  the  American  government  discountenanced  various  attempts 
which  were  made  to  overthrow  the  Spanish  authority  in  the  New  World. 
It  is  unnecessary  to  do  more  than  to  allude  to  the  vigorous  measures  which 
were  adopted  to  arrest  the  movements  of  Miranda,  and  to  defeat  the 
projects  of  Burr.  When  Spain  became  relieved,  our  demands  upon  her 
were  adjusted  upon  terms  the  most  generous  and  liberal  in  their  charac 
ter,  to  that  gallant  and  suffering  nation.  We  relinquished  every  claim  for 


pecuniary  'compensation  from  her  exhausted  treasury  and  impoverished 
people.  We  ceded  our  entire  claim  to  the  magnificent  territory  lying  be 
tween  the  Sabine  and  the  Rio  del  Norte.  We  relinquished  this  claim, 
which,  while  some  may  undertake  to  controvert  its  clear  and  perfect  va 
lidity,  none  can  deny  to  have  rested  on  such  a  plausible  foundation  as  to 
have  stimulated  the  cupidity  of  a  more  ambitious  and  less  scrupulous 
power.  For  all  hese  concessions,  made  by  a  powerful  to  a  weaker  nation, 
we  received  from  Spain  the  cession  of  Florida,  to  one-third  of  which 
we  had  long  asserted  a  paramount  title,  and  that  title  had  now  been  ripened 
by  a  continuous  peaceable  possession,  and  which,  if  her  title  had  been 
undisputed,  was  valueless  in  the  hands  of  Spain,  from  her  inability  to  de 
fend  it.  Such  were  the  exhibitions  of  tha,t  encroaching  and  aggrandizing 
spirit,  which  has  been  thought  to  justify  severe  animadversions  from  a 
community,  which,  centralized  in  a  small  island,  has  extended  her  sway 
beyond  the  limits  of  Alexander's  conquests  and  whose  banner  floats  over 
a  wider  region  than  the  Roman  eagle  ever  ventured  to  gaze  upon — whose 
foreign  territories  comprehend  a  population  of  one  hundred  millions. 

Not  long  after  the  termination  of  her  European  contests,  Spain  found 
herself  involved  in  the  struggle  which  her  American  colonies  had  insti 
tuted  to  emancipate  themselves  from  her  yoke.  A  congeniality  of  feel 
ing,  and  an  almost  identification  of  principle  with  the  people  of  the 
United  States  during  a  similar  contest,  led  our  people  and  our  government 
to  feel  and  express  a  warm  sympathy  with  the  infant  republics  just 
emerging  into  existence.  We  afforded  them  every  encouragement  which 
was  compatible  with  our  neutral  position.  Many  of  our  citizens  volun 
teered  to  peril  their  lives  in  maintaining  the  cause  of  freedom.  We 
availed  ourselves  of  the  earliest  opportunity  to  recognise  the  establish-"  / 
ment  of  that  independence  which  was  yet  hardly  achieved — exerted  our  y 
influence  to  procure  a  similar  recognition  from  the  leading  powers  in 
Europe — and  labored  to  create  a  combination  with  them,  to  induce  Spain 
to  desist  from  further  efforts  at  subjugation,  and  to  crown  the  result  by 
her  free  acknowledgment  of  the  independence  of  her  ancient  colonies. 
In  all  these  movements,  no  eye,  but  one  jaundiced  by  the  most  morbid 
suspicion,  can  discover  aught  but  the  most  sincere  and  disinterested 
attachment  to  the  great  and  noble  cause  of  liberal  and  free  institutions. 
Instead  of  availing  ourselves  of  the  prominent  position  which  we  occu 
pied  on  this  continent,  and  of  our  commanding  strength  to  enlarge  our 
boundaries  by  new  acquisitions  of  territory,  we  studiously  avoided  every 
act  and  every  word  which  indicated  any  desire  of  personal  advantage. 
Instead  of  seeking  to  procure  for  ourselves  those  commercial  privileges 
which  the  services  we  had  rendered  might  have  furnished  us  with 
grounds  of  claiming  as  a  right,  we  refused  to  receive  them  as  a  voluntary 
tribute  of  gratitude  for  our  exertions  in  behalf  of  these  infant  nations. 
We  peremptorily  declined  to  accept  any  advantages  in  trade,  which  wrere 
not  extended  to  the  rest  of  the  Christian  world  ;  and  the  only  suggestion 
which  we  offered,  or  would  listen  to,  of  the  grant  of  peculiar  or  exclusive 
rights,  was  in  favor  of  Spain — the  very  nation  whom  we  were  accused 


8 

of  wronging,  but  who,  in  fact,  had  perpetrated  upon  us  the  most  grievous 
injuries. 

Through  our  intervention  mainly,  Mexican  independence  was  consum 
mated,  and  universally  acknowledged.  Animated,  or  professing  to  be 
animated,  by  the  same  liberal  principles  which  had  guided  us  in  analo 
gous  circumstances,  Mexico  assumed,  as  the  basis  of  her  constitution  of 
government,  the  same  doctrines  which  had  guided  our  fathers  in  con 
structing  our  institutions.  With  few  and  comparatively  unimportant 
modifications,  she  adopted  the  main  features  of  the  frame  of  government 
under  which  we  had  advanced  with  unparalleled  rapidity  in  strength, 
prosperity,  and  happiness. 

Gratified  by  these  manifestations  of  a  community  of  feeling,  and  antici 
pating  from  such  indications  a  more  cordial  and  harmonious  intercourse 
than  had  ever  before  subsisted  between  distinct  communities,  again  the 
people  and  the  government  of  the  United  States  received  the  Mexicans 
with  almost  fraternal  affection.  Our  citizens,  enticed  by  the  alluring 
prospects  presented  to  them  in  this  new  field  of  enterprise,  encouraged 
by  the  flattering  invitations  by  which  they  were  tempted,  confiding  in  the 
good  faith  of  a  people  towards  whom  we  had  uniformly  exhibited 
nothing  but  kindness  and  generosity,  and  whose  institutions  were  so 
similar  to  our  own,  emigrated  in  great  numbers  to  Mexico,  and  carried 
with  them  to  their  new  abodes  wealth,  skill,  and  enterprise,  to  be  now 
employed  in  the  development  of  the  resources,  and  the  augmentation  of 
the  strength  of  their  adopted  country. 

In  thus  contributing  to  the  aggrandizement  of  our  sister  republic,  we 
cherished  the  firm  belief,  and  the  confident  expectation,  that  we  were 
knitting  the  two  nations  together  by  the  strongest  and  most  enduring 
cords  by  which  separate  communities  can  be  connected.  Our  commercial 
interests,  our  agricultural  products,  the  various  occupations  of  industry  in 
every  department,  promised  the  most  diverse,  yet  most  harmonious 
sources  of  mutual  advantage.  Each  was  deficient  in  what  was  supera 
bundant  in  the  other. 

Under  these  auspicious  circumstances,  feelings  of  mutual  confidence, 
and  habits  of  the  most  harmonious  and  unfettered  intercourse,  were 
equally  natural  and  advantageous.  Treaties  were  arranged  between  the 
two  nations,  adjusting  all  those  questions  of  boundary  which  might 
threaten  collision,  and  embodying  in  the  form  of  solemn  compacts  the 
generous  and  enlightened  principles  of  a  humane  and  philosophic  policy. 
Everything  prognosticated  an  uninterrupted  career  of  tranquillity  and 
prosperity. 

These  anticipations,  so  gratifying  to  the  philanthropist  and  the  states 
man,  were  not,  however,  doomed  to  be  realized.  It  soon  appeared  that 
the  inhabitants  of  Mexico,  habituated  to  the  demoralizing  and  degrading 
/  oppression  of  a  stern  and  unrelenting  despotism,  were  but  indifferently 
qualified  for  the  mild  and  moral  restraints  of  republican  institutions. 
The  yoke  which  Spain  had  so  long  fastened  upon  then:  necks,  was,  it  is 
true,  broken ;  but  the  breaking  of  then:  political  fetters  did  not  confer  the 


9 

capacity  to  comprehend  or  to  enjoy  the  sweets'  of  liberty.  The  corrupt 
tendencies  generated  under  their  ancient  influences,  now  liberated  from 
the  restraints  imposed  by  their  colonial  system  of  government,  were  only 
permitted  to  expand  more  luxuriantly  and  more  vigorously  under  their 
new  institutions.  All  the  vices  and  iniquities  which  the  slave  had  learned 
were  now  practised  by  the  freemen,  clothed  with  the  accumulated  strength 
and  energy  which  freedom  had  communicated.  All  subordination  to  law 
and  government  disappeared.  The  soldiery  became  the  mere  organs  of 
political  revolutions.  Anarchy  ruled  the  entire  land ;  and  the  most  ener 
getic  and  most  intellectual — at  the  same  time  the  most  unprincipled — be 
came  the  exclusive  possessors  of  sovereign  authority.  Revolution  suc 
ceeded  revolution.  The  forms  of  a  republic  were,  to  a  certain  extent, 
preserved  ;  but  they  exerted  no  greater  influence,  and  commanded  no 
greater  respect,  than  they  had  done  in  ancient  Rome,  after  every  vestige 
of  liberty  had  been  erased  by  the  Praetorian  guards  of  the  Emperor. 

In  such  a  position  of  the  country,  where  the  law  yielded  no  protection 
to  the  native,  it  could  not  be  expected  to  afford  a  shield  to  the  foreigner. 
Rapine  and  murder  stalked  unchecked  through  the  land,  and  atrocities 
were  daily  perpetrated,  which  were  justly  characterized,  by  one  of  our 
distinguished  statesmen,  as  barbarities  without  parallel  or  precedent  in 
the  annals  of  civilisation.  Citizens  of  the  United  States,  possessing  more-- 
vigor  of  character,  more  industry,  more  skill  in  business,  than  the  natives, 
soon  became  conspicuous  for  their  prosperity  and  wealth,  and,  thus  ele 
vated,  became  tempting  objects  to  rouse  the  cupidity  of  their  neighbors. 
In  vain  did  they  appeal  to  the  constituted  authorities  of  the  land  for  that 
protection  which  had  been  guarantied  by  the  most  precise  treaty  stipula 
tions  ;  the  public  functionaries  were  too  generally  the  actors  or  the  ac 
complices  in  the  deeds  of  cruelty  and  oppression,  to  afford  them  either 
security  or  redress.  In  vain  did  they  invoke  the  interposition  of  their 
own  government ;  the  remonstrances  of  diplomatists  were  wholly  ineffec 
tive.  The  facts  which  they  alleged  were  either  denied  with  the  most  un 
blushing  disregard  to  truth,  coolly  passed  by  with  contemptuous  indiffer 
ence,  or  met  with  vague  and  indefinite  promises  of  inquiry  and  compen 
sation,  which,  in  postponing  the  demand,  accomplished  every  purpose 
which  was  either  desired  or  designed.  The  annexed  papers  furnish,  from 
authentic  sources,  a  brief  but  faithful  narrative  of  this  portion  of  Mexican 
history. 

At  and  prior  to  the  time  when  Santa  Anna  overthrew  the  existing  con 
stitution,  obliterated  the  confederated  republic,  and  constructed  on  its 
ruins  a  military  despotism,  numerous  Americans  had  established  them 
selves  throughout  the  various  provinces  of  Mexico,  and  had  engaged  in 
a  prosperous  career  in  every  department  of  industry.  The  commerce  be- ' 
tween  the  two  nations  had,  in  a  brief  period,  swelled  to  an  amount  ex 
ceeding  nine  millions  of  dollars  annually.  Steam  vessels  navigated  their 
rivers ;  mills  were  erected  for  the  purpose  of  cutting  their  immense  for 
ests  of  valuable  timber ;  plantations  of  cotton,  sugar,  and  coffee  were  es 
tablished  ;  and  the  natural  resources  of  the  country  were  rapidly  develop- 


10 

ing  to  the  great  advantage  of  the  nation,  and  of  the  individuals  interested 
in  these  improvements.  This  scene  of  prosperity  was,  however,  speedily 
changed.  Every  engine  of  oppression  was  put  in  motion,  to  outrage  and 
to  expel  this  most  invaluable  population,  and  thus  to  extinguish  these 
prolific  sources  of  public  and  of  private  wealth.  A  feeling  of  intense  and 
indiscriminate  hatred  to  foreigners  was  artfully  fomented  ;  and,  without 
remorse,  without  any  effort  to  arrest  the  act,  without  any  apprehension 
of  punishment  following  the  offence,  the  lives  of  American  citizens  were 
ruthlessly  sacrificed,  millions  of  property  pillaged  or  destroyed,  and  all 
the  pursuits  of  business  wantonly  annihilated. 

Resistance  to  the  designs  of  Santa  Anna  was  attempted  in  several  of  the 
States  of  Mexico ;  but  all  opposition  was  speedily  quelled  by  the  sword 
'of  the  despot,  and  the  bayonets  of  his  soldiery,  save  only  in  the  frontier 
state  of  Texas.  From  various  circumstances,  it  had  occurred  that  a 
larger  proportion  of  Americans  and  foreigners  had  established  themselves 
in  that  province  than  in  any  other  portion  of  the  territory  of  the  republic. 
Although  feeble  in  numbers,  they  were  undismayed  by  the  defection 
which  was  elsewhere  manifested,  and,  inspired  by  the  love  of  free  insti 
tutions,  they  determined  to  protect  their  constitution,  and  to  defend  their 
rights  against  the  usurper.  It  is  an  entire  perversion  of  the  truth  to  assert 
that  Texas  ever  revolted  against  a  sovereignty  to  which  she  owed  alle 
giance,  or  revolutionized  an  established  government.  She  maintained 
her  institutions  against  the  efforts  of  Mexico  to  overthrow  them,  and 
adhered  loyally  to  the  constitution  which  the  residue  of  the  republic 
labored  to  subvert,  or  \vere  impotent  to  preserve.  Her  glorious  victory 
at  San  Jacinto  confirmed  her  independence  of  the  new  central  sovereignty, 
which  Santa  Anna  had  succeeded  in  establishing ;  and  Texas  became  for 
ever  separated  from  what,  under  new  political  institutions,  still  continued 
to  claim  the  name  of  the  Mexican  Republic. 

Having  consummated  this  act  of  separation,  Texas  was  shortly  after 
recognized  as  a  distinct  and  independent  state,  by  the  United  States  and 
other  principal  powers  of  the  world.  Mexico  persisted  in  her  efforts  to 
reduce  her  to  subjection  ;  but  the  war,  in  consequence  of  the  imbecility 
of  Mexico,  continued  to  languish,  and  degenerated  into  a  miserable  but 
annoying  system  of  marauding  forays.  Under  these  circumstances,  the 
citizens  of  Texas  conceived  the  idea  of  associating  themselves  with  this 
Union.  This  project,  after  encountering  many  and  serious  impediments, 
has  at  length  been  perfected  by  the  almost  unanimous  voice  of  the  great 
body  of  her  people,  and  been  ratified  by  the  constituted  authorities  of 
both  nations. 

In  reviewing  the  history  of  the  relations  between  the  United  States  and 
Mexico,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  latter  has  rarely  found,  in  the  conduct  of 
the  former,  any  pretext  for  complaint.  The  proceedings  of  our  govern 
ment  in  relation  to  Texas  have  furnished  almost  the  only  acts  which 
Mexico  has  even  pretended  to  charge  as  unjust  or  injurious  to  her.  These 
proceedings,  up  to  a  very  recent  period,  have  been  thoroughly  vindicated 


11 

in  the  reply  of  Mr.  Webster  to  the  arrogant  communication  of  Mr.  Bocane- 
gra  to  the  diplomatic  corps.  In  relation  to  the  recent  act  of  annexa 
tion,  Mexico  has  alleged,  as  she  did  in  the  preliminary  proceedings,  that 
we  have  violated  her  clearly-ascertained  national  rights,  as  well  as  our 
own  solemn  treaty  engagements.  The  imputation  involves  the  violation 
of  good  faith,  and  a  breach  of  positive  contract.  If  the  accusation  is 
well  founded,  the  act  cannot  be  too  severely  reprobated,  or  too  harshly 
condemned.  If  unjust,  it  should  be  proudly  and  indignantly  repelled. 
An  attempt  has  been  made,  in  the  first  series  of  the  subjoined  papers,  to 
exhibit  the  true  merits  of  this  question  in  a  fair  and  dispassionate  form. 

It  will  be  readily  perceived  that  the  principal  object  aimed  at  in  these 
papers,  has  been  to  show  that  Mexico  has  not  even  a  plausible  pretext 
for  assailing  the  honor  and  integrity  of  this  nation,  in  reference  to  the 
subject  of  Texas ;  that  the  charge  of  infracting  the  law  of  nations,  of 
violating  treaties,  or  in  any  shape  or  to  any  degree  impairing  her  rights, 
is  utterly  groundless.  It  is  only  in  this  aspect  that  the  question  has  been 
handled.  Considered  in  this  point  of  view,  it  forms  an  important  item  in 
the  history  of  our  relations  with  Mexico,  which  it  has  been  the  exclusive 
object  of  the  entire  series  of  these  articles  to  illustrate.  It  did  not  fall 
within  the  scope  of  the  writer  to  vindicate  the  act  on  any  grounds  that 
were  purely  domestic.  How  far  the  measure  was  in  accordance  with  our 
interests  and  policy — how  far  it  was  in  conformity  with  the  principles  of 
our  constitution — are  questions  certainly  of  grave  importance.  They 
have  been  discussed  elsewhere  with  consummate  ability.  Upon  them 
the  author  entertains  the  most  decided  opinions  ;  and  these  opinions  have 
been  expressed,  without  hesitation  or  reserve,  on  other  occasions.  To 
discuss  them  on  this  occasion,  would  be  a  departure  from  the  exclusive 
object  of  the  present  publication,  which  is  restricted  to  the  single  point 
of  vindicating  the  honor,  integrity  and  good  faith  of  this  country  in  all 
her  relations  with  Mexico,  and  exhibiting  in  their  true  character  our 
dealings  with  that  nation. 

If  these  papers — which,  so  far  as  regards  the  form  which  they  assume, 
have  been  written  "  cur  rente  callamo,"  amid  other  and  engrossing  occupa 
tions — shall  be  instrumental  in  vindicating,  in  the  eyes  of  our  own  citizens, 
our  common  country  from  the  aspersions  so  falsely  or  ignorantly  cast 
upon  it,  as  instigated  by  a  reckless  spirit  of  aggrandizement  to  perpe 
trate  injustice  upon  a  neighboring  community — of  urging  demands  upon 
it,  which  have  no  foundation  in  justice — of  asserting  claims  which  have 
no  substantial  existence  ;— if  they  shall  have  exhibited  in  their  true  colors 
and  just  proportions  the  character  of  Mexico,  and  the  imperative  obliga 
tions  which  rest  upon  this  government  to  persist,  in  every  claim  which 
we  have  asserted,  until  Mexico  shall  either  voluntarily  engage,  or,  by  the 
application  of  the  whole  power  of  the  nation,  be  compelled  to  atone  for 
the  multipled  wrongs  she  has  inflicted,  to  compensate  for  the  grievous 
injuries  which  our  citizens  have  suffered  at  her  hands,  to  atone  for  the 
insults  she  has  offered  to  our  flag  and  to  our  government,  the  object 


OF  THK 

UNIVERSITY 


12 

sought  to  be  attained  will  have  been  fully  accomplished.  The  honor  of 
the  country,  the  outraged  rights  of  our  people,  demand  imperatively  that 
these  results  shall  be  attained ;  and  the  government  will  be  recreant  to 
its  own  duty  and  its  own  character,  if  it  shall  fail  to  attain  them  all. 

RICHARD  S.  COXE. 
WASHINGTON,  September  10,  1845. 


13 


No.  II. 

THERE  is  an  inherent  love  of  honor  and  of  justice  prevading  the  public 
mind  in  this  country,  which  no  man,  who  duly  appreciates  the  character 
of  the  American  people,  will  be  so  senseless  or  so  narrow-minded  as  for 
a  moment  to  suppose  is  confined  to  any  particular  section  of  the  Union, 
or  exclusively  enjoyed  by  any  particular  party.  This  deference  to  prin 
ciple  is  co-extensive  with  our  institutions,  and  as  widely  spread  as  our 
territorial  limits.  Yet  it  is  perfectly  obvious  that  it  is  by  appeals  to  this 
moral  sense  of  the  community  that  much  of  the  feeling  antagonistic  to 
the  annexation  of  Texas  has  been  assailed.  With  how  much  justice 
this  has  been  done,  will  appear  from  a  calm  and  deliberate  examination 
of  the  subject. 

In  common  with  others,  both  Mr.  Clay  and  Mr.  Van  Buren,  in  the 
exhibition  of  their  views,  appear  to  have  fallen  into  a  capital  error, 
which  has  given  but  too  much  color  to  these  imputations,  upon  the  prin 
ciples  and  motives  of  those  who  differed  with  them  in  opinion,  and  which 
it  is  not  easy  to  reconcile  with  the  long  and  practical  experience  which 
both  of  those  gentlemen  have  had  in  public  affairs.  They  have  urged, 
as  the  chief  foundation  of  their  hostility  to  the  measure  of  annexation,  as 
it  was  presented  at  the  last  session  of  Congress,  that  it  would  involve  a 
serious  injury  to  the  subsisting  rights  of  Mexico.  They  have  intimated 
that,  in  their  judgment,  the  connection  which  at  one  time  existed  be 
tween  Mexico  and  Texas  still  continues  ;  that  this  connection  cannot  be 
rightfully  and  absolutely  dissolved  without  the  express  or  implied  assent 
of  both  parties ;  and  that,  notwithstanding  the  public  declaration  by 
Texas  that  this  connection  had  terminated,  the  actual  enjoyment  of  her 
independence,  and  the  formal  recognition  of  this  independence  by  the 
United  States,  and  several  of  the  leading  sovereigns  of  Europe,  still,  to 
certain  purposes,  Mexico  retains  her  original  claim  to  the  sovereignty  of 
the  country  ;  and  that,  until  this  right  of  Mexico  shall  be  formally  yield 
ed  by  her,  or,  through  some  indefinite  lapse  of  time,  shall  be  impliedly 
relinquished,  Texas  remains,  and  must  remain,  in  the  view  of  public  and 
national  law,  a  constituent  part  of  the  Mexican  territory.  They  conse 
quently  insist,  that,  in  this  posture  of  affairs,  the  United  States  have  no 
right,  and  cannot,  without  a  manifest  violation  of  the  prior  and  unques 
tioned  right  of  Mexico,  form  a  union  with  Texas,  and,  even  with  her 
free  and  full  consent,  receive  her  into  our  Union  as  an  integral  part  of 
our  Republic. 

In  the  views  thus  exhibited,  lies,  as  is  apprehended,  a  double  error  : 


14 

the  one  in  the  facts  assumed  as  the  foundation  upon  which  the  opinion 
rests — the  other  admitting  the  truth  of  those  facts,  in  the  legal  conse 
quences  resulting  from  them. 

The  fact  is  denied,  and  history  sustains  this  denial,  that  Texas,  at  any 
time,  to  any  extent,  or  for  any  purpose,  constituted  a  part  of  Mexico,  or 
was  either  rightfully  or  otherwise  subject  to  her  sovereign  authority. 

In  making  this  broad  assertion,  we  must,  of  course,  be  understood  as 
distinguishing  between  Mexico  as  one  separate  and  independent  sove 
reignty,  and  the  United  States  of  Mexico,  or  the  United  Mexican  States 
— names  given  to  a  confederation  and  union  of  several  distinct  and 
sovereign  States,  of  which  Mexico  was  one,  and  the  most  prominent. 
Those  united  States  were  frequently  and  familiarly  called  Mexico,  pre 
cisely  in  the  same  manner,  and  by  the  same  figure  of  speech,  that  these 
United  States  are  styled  America.  This  distinction,  so  important  to  a 
correct  understanding  of  the  subject,  and  which  has  been  wholly  over 
looked  in  the  objection  we  are  considering,  has  been  for  two  centuries 
familiar  to  European  history.  The  United  Provinces  were  seven  in 
number,  of  which  Holland,  being  the  principal  and  more  powerful,  gave 
her  name  in  the  same  way  to  the  whole  republic.  Austria,  simply  a 
distinct  principality,  was  a  name  familiarly  used  and  applied  to  the  entire 
dominions  under  the  sway  of  her  Imperial  master.  In  the  year  1776, 
while  under  the  sovereigns  of  Spain,  the  vice  royalty  of  New  Spain 
comprehended  several  distinct  provinces,  among  which  were  Mexico, 
Puebla,  Vera  Cruz,  &c.,  &c.  ;  while  Coahuila  and  Texas  were  not  in 
cluded  within  that  appellation.  When  the  Spanish  yoke  was  thrown 
off  by  her  American  provinces,  new  and  distinct  sovereignties  were 
created  out  of  the  broken  fragments.  Their  independence  was  not  a 
combined,  or  even  a  contemporaneous  act.  The  single  circumstance 
that  all  had  originally  constituted  parts  of  the  territory  of,  and  professed 
allegiance  to,  the  same  mother-country,  did  not  render  them,  when  that 
connection  was  dissolved,  one  independent  state.  That  circumstance 
did  not  make  them  a  unit  in  the  new  condition  of  affairs.  Colombia, 
Central  America,  Peru,  Chili,  and  others,  are,  and  have  been,  as  com 
pletely  severed  from  each  other  as  from  their  common  parent. 

In  some  instances,  as  circumstances  made  it  expedient,  the  new  com 
munities  thus  sprung  into  existence  began  to  form  associations  with 
their  neighbors  upon  terms  mutually  acceptable  ;  in  others  they  re 
mained  distinctly  and  separately  independent.  In  the  northern  part  of 
those  Spanish  dominions  the  federal  system  obtained  the  preponderance, 
and  a  republican  form  of  government  was  adopted.  This  comprised 
nineteen  distinct  States,  and  five  territories,  the  population  of  which 
latter  was  not  sufficient  to  entitle  them  to  be  received  upon  the  same 


15 

footing  of  equality  with  the  more  powerful  members  of  the  Union.  A 
regular  constitution,  or  form  of  government,  was  established,  analogous, 
in  many  respects,  to  that  which  prevails  in  the  United  States.  The 
name  assumed  by  this  confederacy  was  the  United  Mexican  States  ; 
and,  by  the  terms  of  the  Constitution,  each  State  retained  large  and  im 
portant  powers,  and  exclusively  managed  its  own  internal  concerns. 
The  legislative  department,  like  our  own,  was  composed  of  two  bodies 
— the  House  of  Representatives  and  the  Senate.  The  members  of  the 
former  were  elected  in  the  different  States — each  eighty  thousand  in 
habitants  being  entitled  to  one  representative.  The  Senate  was  con 
stituted  of  two  members,  chosen  by  each  State  legislature.  The  execu 
tive  power  was  deposited  in  the  hands  of  a  president,  elected  by  the 
State  legislatures  every  four  years.  It  is  unnecessary,  on  this  occasion, 
to  go  further  into  details,  illustrating  the  close  resemblance  which  sub 
sisted  between  the  constitutional  form  of  government,  which  was  adopted 
by  the  new  republic,  and  that  which  exists  in  our  own  country. 

Of  the  republic  thus  constituted,  the  State  of  Coahuila  and  Texas 
formed  an  integral  part.  It  was  a  voluntary  association,  united  by  a 
special  compact  of  the  most  solemn  kind  and  character.  It  subsisted  by 
and  in  its  organic  law — its  constitution.  From  this  republic  (of  which 
by  her  own  free  assent  she  composed  a  part)  Texas  has  never  separated. 
She  has  never  revolted  against  it — never  declared  herself  independent 
of  it ;  nor  did  she  ever  assent  to,  or  participate  in,  its  dissolution. 
While  it  continued  in  existence,  Texas  remained  faithful  to  her  engage 
ments,  loyal  to  her  allegiance,  unswerving  in  her  fidelity.  It  was  dis 
solved  without  her  consent,  against  her  wishes,  in  spite  of  her  remon 
strances.  It  was  annihilated  by  the  voice  and  action  of  other  and  more 
powerful  members  of  the  confederacy.  It  was  overturned  by  violence, 
by  force  of  arms — by  what,  in  the  vernacular  phrase  of  the  country,  is 
termed  a  pronuntiamento ;  elsewhere  known  by  the  more  expressive 
word,  a  revolution. 


No.  III. 

IN  our  last  number  it  was  stated,  in  a  succinct  manner,  what  was  the 
nature  of  the  union  of  the  States  into  which  Texas  entered,  and  by 
which  her  political  existence  became  connected  with  that  of  Mexico, 
and  how  that  union  had  been  terminated.  T»he  question  now  presents 
itself,  what  were  the  legitimate  consequences  resulting  from  this  state 
of  things  ?  A  compact  had  been  formed  between  independent  States, 


16 

connecting  them  under  one  federal  head.  That  connection  was  termi 
nated  by  the  will  of  a  portion  of  this  community,  annihilating  the  bond 
of  union,  and  establishing  a  new  form  of  government,  which  had  not, 
like  the  former,  any  foundation  in  the  general  consent  of  the  parties. 
What  is,  then,  the  condition  of  a  party  to  the  old  compact  ?  Is  it  under 
any  obligation  to  yield  its  assent  to  the  change  which  has  thus  been 
consummated  ?  Does  it  owe  any  allegiance  to  the  new  Government, 
constituted  without  its  assent,  and  in  opposition  to  its  wishes  ?  These 
inquiries  may  be  satisfactorily  answered  by  reference  to  our  own  insti 
tutions,  and  by  considering  them  as  propounded  to  ourselves.  Our 
national  existence  owes  its  birth  to  circumstances  and  to  principles  iden 
tical  with  those  in  which  the  Mexican  Republic  originated.  When  the 
thirteen  colonies  emancipated  themselves  from  the  dominion  of  England, 
and  proclaimed  their  independence,  they  each  became  a  sovereign,  free, 
and  independent  State.  Each  was,  by  this  act,  clothed  with  all  the 
attributes  of  sovereignty,  to  every  extent,  and  to  every  purpose.  The 
connection  with  Great  Britain  was  absolutely  and  entirely  dissolved.  It 
was  as  if  it  had  never  existed.  Each  was  at  perfect  liberty  to  form  for 
itself  a  separate  and  distinct  government ;  and  no  other  earthly  power 
had  the  right  to  interfere  with  the  free  exercise  of  this  will.  Each 
was  entitled,  by  its  own  inherent  po\vers,  without  looking  beyond  for 
any  additional  sanction  to  its  course,  to  unite  with,  or  to  remain  distinct 
from,  each  and  every  other.  Had  one  or  more  of  them  judged  it  ex 
pedient,  they  might,  even  during  the  pendency  of  the  Revolutionary 
struggle,  do  as  all  collectively  did — organize  their  own  forms  of  govern 
ment,  and  form  alliances  with  foreign  powers.  Some  might  have  pre 
ferred  to  surrender  their  separate  political  existence,  so  recently  assert 
ed,  and  still  unconsolidated  and  unconfirmed,  by  merging  it  in  that  of 
some  European  potentate.  One  might  have  gone  back  to  her  ancient 
sovereign,  Holland ;  another  might  have  deemed  it  more  in  accordance 
with  her  interests  to  yield  an  unqualified  submission  to  France  ;  while 
a  third,  pursuing  its  own  views  of  policy,  might,  with  equal  right,  have 
recognized  the  sovereignty  of  Spain,  and  became  a  part  of  her  Ameri 
can  domain. 

Can  this  view  of  the  matter  admit  of  any  reasonable  doubt  ?  In  what 
part  of  the  code  of  national  law  it  is  prohibited  ?  What  right  would 
have  been  violated  ?  The  colonies  were,  and  each  separately  was,  per 
fectly  and  absolutely  independent.  This  independency  was  consummate 
and  perfect  in  July,  1776,  and  owes  not  a  tittle  to  its  recognition  by  Great 
Britain  in  the  treaty  of  peace.  Such  has  ever  been  the  doctrine  held  by 
every  statesman  and  jurist  in  the  United  States.  In  the  year  1808,  the 
very  point  came  up  for  decision  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 


17 

States.  The  language  of  that  high  tribunal  on  that  occasion  is  clear, 
precise,  and  unequivocal.  "  This  opinion,"  they  say,  "  is  predicated 
upon  a  principle  which  is  believed  to  be  undeniable — that  the  several 
States  which  compose  this  Union,  so  far  at  least  as  regards  their  munici 
pal  regulations,  became  entitled,  from  the  time  when  they  declared 
themselves,  independent,  to  all  the  rights  and  powers  of  Sovereign 
States,  and  that  they  did  not  drive  them  from  concessions  made  by  the 
British  King.  The  treaty  of  peace  contains  a  recognition  of  their  inde 
pendence,  not  a  grant  of  it." 

Upon  the  same  principles,  each  of  the  provinces  which  had  been 
colonized  on  this  continent  by  Old  Spain,  when  it  cast  off  the  ancient 
sovereignty  and  asserted  its  independence,  became,  in  like  manner,  sep 
arately  and  distinctly  a  free  and  sovereign  State.  Each  possessed  all 
the  attributes  of  sovereignty.  Each  enjoyed,  to  its  utmost  extent,  the 
right  to  establish  such  form  of  government  as  to  it  seemed  most  suitable 
to  its  circumstances,  and  promised  to  be  most  conducive  to  its  happi 
ness.  Each  was  at  perfect  liberty  to  connect  himself,  under  any  form  of 
alliance  or  association,  with  any  other  power.  The  same  rights  of  sove 
reignty  which  gave  validity  to  the  act  by  which  some  of  these  States 
formed  a  union  with  each  other,  made  compacts,  merged,  to  such  extent 
as  they  pleased,  their  separate  existence  in  that  of  another,  or  association 
of  others,  equally  entitled  it  rightfully  and  effectually  to  establish  a  simi 
lar  connection  with  any  other  independent  power,  and  form  with  it  a 
joint  and  united  nation  upon  the  same  or  any  other  terms. 

There  was  nothing  in  the  previous  connecion  between  the  separate 
provinces  of  Spain,  in  the  fact  of  their  having  been  associated  in  their 
allegiance  to  the  same  sovereign,  or  in  the  law  of  nations  applicable  to 
this  state  of  circumstances,  which,  when  they  had  achieved  their  inde 
pendence,  bound  them  to  limit  themselves  in  establishing  a  confederacy 
with  other  States,  to  each  other  or  among  themselves.  The  province 
of  Texas  had  as  perfect,  absolute,  and  indefeasible  right,  in  that  posture 
of  affairs,  to  form  a  union  with  these  United  States,  or  Guatemala  a 
similar  one  with  France,  or  Beunos  Ayres  with  Brazil,  upon  any  terms 
mutually  acceptable  to  the  parties,  as  the  same  provinces  had  to  form  an 
association  with  each  other.  If  a  difference  exists,  it  is  assuredly  not 
an  obvious  one  ;  and  none  such,  it  is  believed,  has  ever  been  suggested 
from  any  quarter. 


18 


No.  IV. 

IF  the  views  presented  in  the  preceding  number  be  correct — and  no 
reason  is  seen  to  entertain  a  doubt  upon  the  subject — then  it  must  be 
conceded,  that,  at  the  point  of  time  when  Texas  had  proclaimed  and 
consummated  her  independence  on  Spain,  no  consequence  flowed  from 
her  new  position  which,  in  any  measure,  qualified  or  limited  the  extent 
of  her  sovereign  rights.  There  did  not  result  from  it,  to  any  extent  or 
to  any  purpose,  any  obligation  to  connect  herself  with  Mexico,  or  any 
subordination  to  that  sister  province.  She  was  as  independent  of  Mexi 
co  as  of  Spain. 

The  consequence  is  irresistible,  that,  at  that  juncture,  the  right  of 
Texas  to  form  a  union  with  these  United  States,  upon  any  terms  or 
conditions  which  she  might  deem  expedient,  was  as  perfect  and  unques 
tionable  as  that  which  she  confessedly  possessed,  and  in  fact  exercised, 
of  uniting  herself  with  other  free  and  independent  States,  in  her  immedi 
ate  vicinity,  and  to  which  circumstances  had  attached  her  more  closely. 
If  it  was  competent  for  her,  without  affording  just  cause  of  offence  to 
any  power,  to  do  what  she  has  done,  when  she  formed  with  the  States 
of  Mexico,  Vera  Cruz,  Puebla,  and  others,  a  confederative  republic, 
then  also  might  she,  in  the  exercise  of  the  same  faculties,  and  in  the 
same  form,  have  united  herself  with  our  own  government. 

Animated  by  a  generous  sympathy,  engendered  by  a  common  struggle 
for  the  attainment  of  common  ends,  and  by  an  enlarged  sense  of  mutual 
interests,  the  thirteen  colonies,  after  having  proclaimed  their  indepen 
dence  on  Great  Britain,  in  the  exercise  of  their  undoubted  powers, 
thought  it  expedient,  even  before  the  conclusion  of  hostilities,  to  asso 
ciate  together  under  articles  of  confederation.  This  celebrated  league 
had  its  origin  contemporaneously  with  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
although  it  did  not  receive  the  assent  of  all  the  States  until  the  year  1781. 
After  adopting  a  name  for  the  confederacy,  the  first  article  of  this  agree 
ment  declares  that  each  State  retains  its  sovereignty,  freedom,  and  inde 
pendence,  and  every  power,  jurisdiction,  and  right,  which  is  not,  by  this 
confederation,  expressly  delegated  to  the  United  States  in  Congress  as 
sembled  ;  and  the  Sixth  Article  contains  a  stipulation  which  impliedly 
admits  the  authority  to  exist,  the  exercise  of  which  is  thus  fettered,  that 
no  State,  without  the  consent  of  the  United  States,  shall  send  an)*  em 
bassy  to,  or  receive  any  embassy  from,  or  enter  into  any  conference, 
agreement,  alliance,  or  treaty  with,  any  king,  prince,  or  State,  &c.  Af 
ter  the  close  of  the  war,  the  same  parties  again  judged  it  expedient  to 


19 

perfect  this  union,  and  to  knit  the  parts  more  closely  together,  and  they 
united  in  establishing  a  Constitution,  which,  with  but  few,  and,  as  regards 
our  foreign  relations,  wholly  unimportant  alterations,  still  continues  the 
chart  of  our  government. 

Stimulated  by  our  example,  animated  by  congenial  motives,  and 
placed  in  the  same  circumstances,  several  of  the  provinces  which  had 
declared  themselves  independent  on  Old  Spain,  and  whose  territories 
were  contiguous,  pursued,  almost  without  deviation,  the  same  course. 
In  the  year  1824,  and,  as  the  face  of  the  instrument  itself  expresses,  in 
the  fourth  year  of  independence,  and  second  of  the  federation,  they  agreed 
upon,  and  promulgated  a  Constitution.  One  clause  in  this  paper  is  with 
out  any  precedent  in  the  American  form.  The  concluding  article,  No. 
171,  in  terms,  declares,  that  "  the  Articles  of  this  Constitution,  and  the 
constitutional  act  which  establishes  the  division  of  the  supreme  power 
of  the  federation  and  of  the  States,  can  never  be  reformed." 

The  fifth  Article  of  the  Constitution,  Section  49,  declares  the  object  of 
the  laws  and  decrees  which  may  emanate  from  the  general  Congress. 
Among  these  is — "  third,  maintain  the  independence  of  the  States  among 
themselves,  in  all  that  relates  to  their  interior  government,  in  conformity 
to  the  constitutional  act  and  this  Constitution."  The  form  of  govern 
ment  is  specially  declared  to  be  republican,  representative,  popular,  fed 
eral.  Not  only  are  the  powers  and  jurisdiction  of  the  federal  govern 
ment  clearly  and  explicitly  defined,  but  even  the  form  and  powers  of 
the  State  governments  are  expressed  with  equal  caution  and  distinct 
ness. 

In  1827,  the  State  of  Coahuila  and  Texas  acceded  formally  to  this 
plan  of  government,  by  the  establishment  and  promulgation  of  its  own 
State  Constitution.  Some  of  the  provisions  of  this  instrument  are 
remarkable,  and  indicate  a  vigilant  and  sagacious  forecast.  Among  its 
prominent  enactments  is  found  this  declaration  :  that  the  State  *'  is  free 
and  independent  of  the  other  United  Mexican  States,  and  of  every  other 
foreign  power  and  dominion ;"  that,  "  in  all  matters  relating  to  the 
Mexican  federation,  the  State  delegates  its  faculties  and  powers  to  the 
general  Congress  of  the  same ;  but,  in  all  that  properly  relates  to  the 
administration  and  entire  government  of  the  State,  it  retains  its  liberty, 
independence,  and  sovereignty."  "  Therefore  belongs  exclusively  to 
the  same  State  the  right  to  establish,  by  means  of  its  representatives,  its 
fundamental  laws,  conformable  to  the  basis  sanctioned  in  the  constitu 
tional  act  and  the  general  Constitution." 

It  was  thus,  and  to  this  extent,  that  Texas,  by  her  own  free  act,  as  a 
sovereign  and  independent  State,  annexed  herself  to,  and  became  a  part 
of  the  Mexican  Republic.  The  Constitution  was,  in  form  and  substance, 


20 

in  design  and  terms,  a  compact  between  distinct  and  separate  communi 
ties,  prescribing  the  objects  of  the  union,  the  terms  and  conditions  upon 
which  it  was  established,  defining  with  precision  and  accuracy  the  powers 
delegated  to  the  general  government,  and  those  which  were  retained  by 
the  State.  In  general  and  comprehensive,  but  perfectly  intelligible  lan 
guage,  it  declared  the  nature  and  character  of  that  general  government, 
while,  in  distributing  these  powers  among  the  several  departments,  pro 
viding  for  the  mode  in  which  all  the  functionaries  were  to  be  elected 
and  appointed,  it  was  guarded,  as  far  as  written  Constitution  can  guard, 
against  any  substantial  alteration  in  these  fundamental  points.  The 
division  which  it  made  of  the  supreme  powers  of  the  Republic,  and  the 
distribution  of  those  faculties  between  and  among  the  general  and  State 
governments,  was  not  only  made  fundamental,  but  unchangeable  for  ever. 
It  then  appears,  from  the  most  authentic  and  indubitable  evidence,  that, 
so  far  from  there  ever  having  been  any  sovereign  authority  in  Mexico 
over  Texas,  any  inferiority  or  subordination,  they  met,  acted,  and  con 
federated  as  equal  and  independent,  and  as  occupying,  in  every  particu 
lar,  and  to  every  purpose,  an  equal  footing. 


No.    V. 

The  form  of  government  and  the  character  of  the  connection  estab 
lished  by  the  Constitution  of  1824,  have  been  examined.  That  Consti 
tution,  however,  has  been  dissolved,  and  the  form  of  government  which 
it  created  and  legitimated  has  been  overturned.  This  catastrophe  was 
accomplished,  not  at  the  instance  of  Texas — not  by  any  act  of  hers — not 
with  her  aid  or  participation.  It  was  consummated  by  the  acts  of  other 
members  of  the  Confederacy,  and  chiefly  through  the  instrumentality  of 
Mexico — the  most  prominent  and  the  most  powerful  of  the  number.  In 
the  years  1834  and  1835,  General  Santa  Anna,  who  had  previously  been 
connected  with  the  constitutional  or  federal  party,  suddenly  changed  his 
ground — at  the  head  of  an  army  overthrew  the  existing  government, 
ejected  the  general  and  State  legislatures  from  their  halls,  and  established 
a  central  military  despotism  on  the  ruins  of  the  Constitution.  No  refer 
ence  was  made  to  the  will  of  the  nation — no  consent  of  the  people  was 
required  or  given.  Wherever  opposition  was  made  to  the  new  order  of 
things,  it  was  met  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet  and  overcome.  Assuming 
sovereign  power,  based  upon  no  other  foundation  than  his  own  individual 
will,  he  issued  the  most  arbitrary  decrees,  and  undertook  to  enforce 
their  execution  by  the  sole  energy  of  the  sword.  Texas,  animated  by 


21 

a  feeling  which  commands  our  sympathy  and  deserves  our  highest  eulo- 
gium,  singly  opposed  this  power.  A  convention  of  the  deputies  of  the 
people  was  held,  and  a  provisional'  government  was  established.  Even 
amid  all  these  circumstances,  Texas  continued  true  and  loyal  to  her 
engagements.  Imitating  again  the  noble  example  of  our  forefathers  in 
1775,  while  with  one  hand  she  grasped  the  sword  with  a  fixed  resolu 
tion  to  maintain  her  rights  and  her  free  institutions,  with  the  other  she 
proffered  the  olive  branch.  In  November,  1835,  a  manifesto  was  pro 
mulgated,  couched  in  language  which  must  commend  itself  equally  to 
the  feelings  and  principles  of  every  votary  of  rational  freedom — 

"  Whereas  General  Antonio  Lopez  de  Santa  Anna,  and  other  military 
chieftains,  have  by  force  of  arms  overthrown  the  Federal  Constitution  of 
Mexico,  and  desolved  the  social  compact  which  existed  between  Texas 
and  the  other  members  of  the  confederacy,  now,  the  good  people  of 
Texas,  availing  themselves  of  their  natural  right,  solemnly  declare — 

"  First.  That  they  have  taken  up  arms  in  defense  of  their  rights  and 
liberties,  which  were  threatened  by  the  encroachments  of  military  des 
pots,  and  in  defence  of  the  republican  principles  of  the  Federal  Constitu 
tion  of  Mexico  of  1824. 

"  Second.  That  Texas  is  no  longer  morally  or  civilly  bound  by  the 
compact  of  union  ;  yet,  stimulated  by  the  generosity  and  sympathy  com 
mon  to  a  free  people,  they  offer  their  support  and  assistance  to  such  of 
the  members  of  the  Mexican  confederacy  as  will  take  up  arms  against 
a  military  despotism. 

"  Third,  that  they  do  not  acknowledge  that  the  present  authorities  of 
the  present  nominal  Mexican  Republic  have  the  right  to  govern  within 
the  limits  of  Texas. 

"  Fourth.  That  they  will  not  cease  to  carry  on  war  against  the  said 
authorities,  whilst  their  troops  are  within  the  limits  of  Texas. 

"  Fifth.  That  they  hold  it  to  be  their  right,  during  the  disorganization 
of  the  federal  system  and  the  reign  of  despotism,  to  withdraw  from  the 
Union,  to  establish  an  independent  government,  or  to  adopt  such  mea 
sures  as  they  may  deem  best  calculated  to  protect  their  rights  and  liberties, 
but  that  they  will  continue  faithful  to  the  Mexican  government,  so  long 
as  that  nation  is  governed  by  the  Constitution  and  laws  that  were  framed 
for  the  government  of  the  political  association." 

The  principles  embodied  in  this  manifesto  are  substantially  those  which 
emanated  from  the  fathers  of  our  own  Revolution,  during  the  period 
which  intervened  between  the  first  shedding  of  blood  at  Lexington  until, 
all  hopes  of  reconcilation  being  abandoned,  the  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence  consumated  for  ever  the  dissolution  of  the  connection  by  which 
the  colonies  had  been  bound  to  the  mother-country.  Those  sentiments 


22 

and  principlest  hus  commended  themselves  to  the  reason  and  judgment  of 
of  every  American  patriot  and  votary  of  constitutional  freedom  through 
Christendom.  It  is  hoped  that  they  have  lost  none  of  their  titles  to  our 
respect  and  sympathy  during  the  years  that  have  since  passed. 

As  among  ourselves,  these  appeals  to  principle  proved  unavailing. 
Santa  Anna  was  not  to  be  moved  by  declarations  of  personal  rights,  and 
securities  guarantied  by  written  Constitutions,  or  derived  from  the  origi 
nal  foundations  of  government.  He  persisted  in  his  efforts  to  subjugate  by 
arms  those  who  opposed  him.  He  penetrated  Texas  with  his  army  :  he 
was  vanquished  on  the  plains  of  San  Jacinto,  and  found  himself  a  prisoner 
in  the  hands  of  those  whom  he  had  hoped  to  bring  under  his  iron  sway. 
Treated  with  a  lenity  which  he  never  would  have  exhibited,  had  the 
fortunes  of  war  given  him  the  victory,  he  still  perseveres  in  his 
determination. 

In  the  meanwhile,  finding  all  plans  of  conciliation  futile  and  ineffective 
— all  compacts  broken — all  written  Constitutions  trampled  on — the 
inhabitants  of  Texas,  still,  if  not  imitating  our  example,  impelled  by  the 
same  motives,  and  actuated  by  the  same  principles  which  influenced  our 
fathers,  in  March,  1836,  promulgated  a  declaration  of  independence.  In 
this  memorable  instrument,  they  say  :  "  That  the  Federal  Republican 
Constitution  of  their  country,  which  they  had  sworn  to  support,  has  no 
longer  a  substantial  existence  ;  and  the  whole  nature  of  their  govern 
ment  has  been  forcibly  changed,  without  their  consent,  from  a  restrictive 
federative  republic,  composed  of  sovereign  States,  to  a  consolidated,  cen 
tral,  and  military  despotism."  They  assert,  in  detail,  the  grievances 
to  which  they  had  been  subjected,  and  come  to  a  conclusion,  the  legiti 
macy  of  which  no  citizen  of  these  United  States  can  consistently  contro 
vert — "  The  necessity  of  self-preservation,  therefore,  now  decrees  our 
eternal  political  separation." 


No.  VI. 

WE  have  now  traced,  in  a  rapid  manner,  the  history  of  Texas,  down  to 
the  year  1836,  when  her  independence  was  not  merely  formally  an 
nounced  in  an  authoritative  form,  but  actually  consolidated  by  a  victory 
as  decisive  as  that  which,  at  Yorktown,  consummated  the  independence 
of  these  United  States. 

Out  of  the  materials  which  had,  by  their  voluntary  cohesion  and 
agreement,  composed  the  Mexican  Republic,  two  distinct  nations  had 
been  formed.  Mexico,  and  those  of  the  States  which  still  adhered  to 


23 

her,  constituted  the  one,  under  a  system  of  government  which,  wholly 
regardless  of  all  the  principles  of  republicanism  and  personal  freedom, 
rested  upon  the  sword  and  military  power  as  its  only  foundations.  On 
the  other  hand,  Texas,  who  had,  in  connection  with  Mexico,  thrown  off 
the  Spanish  yoke,  who  had  with  her  united  in  establishing  a  constitu 
tional  federative  republican  government,  adhered  to  the  principles  which 
all  had  originally  proposed,  and  by  which  all  had  been  originally  actua 
ted,  and  persisted  in  remaining  free. 

To  the  new  government  thus  established  by  her  former  associates, 
Texas  has  never  yielded  her  assent.  She  has  never  professed  allegiance 
to  it.  She  has  never  recognised  its  authority.  She  peremptorily  refus 
ed  her  concurrence  in  its  establishment,  and,  from  the  beginning,  has 
proclaimed  herself  independent  of  it.  By  the  blessing  of  God,  and  with 
the  strength  of  her  own  right  arm,  she  has  been  enabled  to  maintain  this 
independence.  The  "  republican  representative,  popular,  federal  gov 
ernment,"  instituted,  as  we  have  seen,  in  1824,  no  longer  exists — the 
union  which  was  then  formed  has  been  dissolved,  and  this  artificial  body 
has  been  resolved  into  its  original  elements. 

What,  then,  is  the  consequence  of  such  a  dissolution  thus  wrought  ? 
The  universal  sense  of  mankind,  wherever  free  governments  exist — 
wherever  written  Constitutions  are  known — furnishes  but  one  answer  to 
this  interrogatory.  The  integral  parts  of  the  confederation  resume  their 
original  position — they  stand  where  they  did  before  the  union  was  estab 
lished.  Mexico  and  Texas  occupy  the  same  attitude,  and  possess  the 
same  absolute  and  relative  rights  which  they  did  before  they  became  con 
nected  under  their  written  terms  of  association.  It  was  by  this  compact 
that  any  change  had  been  effected  ;  that  having  terminated,  its  effect 
and  operation  cease.  There  no  longer  exists  the  common  head  ;  that 
has  been  annihilated  by  the  dissolution  of  the  compact  which  created  it, 
and  none  other  has  been  substituted. 

To  assert  that  from  this  course  of  events  it  results  that  Texas  owes 
any  degree  or  species  of  allegiance  to  Mexico  ;  that  she  is  still  under 
any  subordination  to,  or  dependence  upon  her,  or  that  Mexico  has  the 
faintest  shadow  of  right  to  assert  sovereignty  over  Texas — is  to  draw 
consequences  wholly  unwarranted  by  the  premises.  To  say,  as  Mr. 
Clay  most  unguardedly  says,  that  "  Texas  revolted  from  Mexico,"  is  to 
assume  that  which  has  no  foundation  in  the  history  of  the  two  nations. 

The  language  of  our  own  Declaration  of  Independence  assumes  and 
promulgates  the  true  doctrine  upon  this  point.  In  that  paper  it  is  de 
clared  "  that  governments  are  instituted  among  men,  drawing  their  just 
powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed,  to  secure  the  rights  of  life, 
liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness" — "  That,  whenever  any  form  of 


24 

government  becomes  destructive  of  these  ends,  it  is  the  right  of  the  peo 
ple  to  alter  or  to  abolish  it,  and  to  institute  a  new  government,  laying 
its  foundation  on  such  principles,  and  organizing  its  powers  in  such 
form,  as  to  them  shall  seem  most  likely  to  effect  their  safety  and  hap 
piness." — "  When  a  long  train  of  abuses  and  usurpations,  pursuing  in 
variably  the  same  object,  evinces  a  design  to  reduce  them  under  abso 
lute  despotism,  it  is  their  right,  it  is  their  duty,  to  throw  off  such  gov 
ernment,  and  to  provide  new  guards  for  their  future  security."  Such 
were  the  principles  entertained  by  our  forefathers  ;  such  the  language 
in  which  they  were  announced  to  the  world,  as  the  ground  upon  which 
the  American  colonies  were  justified  before  God  and  man  in  decreeing 
"  an  eternal  separation  "  from  Great  Britain.  How  much  stronger  was 
the  case  of  Texas  !  England  had  not  attempted  to  subvert  the  old  and 
established  form  of  government.  The  ground  of  complaint  against  her 
was,  that  she  abused  the  power  which  she  in  part  possessed,  and  dis 
regarded  the  rights  of  those  whom  she  had  a  constitutional  authority  to 
X"govern.  Mexico  struck  at  the  root  of  the  tree.  She  assailed  and  un 
dermined  the  very  foundation  upon  which  the  Union  rested.  She  pros 
trated  the  entire  system  of  government  established  by  the  consent  of  all 
parties  to  the  confederation.  She  broke  the  only  tie  of  connection 
which  subsisted  between  herself  and  Texas. 

Cogent  and  conclusive  as  is  the  argument  drawn  from  our  own  ex 
ample  in  1776,  a  still  more  striking  analogy  to  the  circumstances  in 
which  Texas  was  placed,  by  the  lawless  usurpation  of  Santa  Anna,  may 
be  imagined.  A  case  may  be  conceived,  which,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  will 
never  exist  but  in  the  fancy.  The  several  States  which  compose  our 
Union  are  bound  together  by  a  constitutional  compact,  similar  in  its 
fundamental  characteristics,  and  even  in  many  of  its  details,  to  that 
which  existed  among  the  States  which  constituted  the  Republic  of  Mex 
ico.  If  it  happen,  in  the  progress  of  time,  that  a  portion  of  the  largest 
and  most  powerful  of  our  States,  under  any  influences,  should  deem  it 
expedient  to  alter  fundamentally  the  form  of  government  which  is  em 
bodied  in  our  Constitution  ;  should  Massachusetts  and  New  York,  Penn 
sylvania  and  Ohio,  resolve  to  put  an  end  to  the  existing  state  of  things, 
and  establish  a  monarchy,  or  what  would  more  closely  approximate  to 
the  government  which  existed  in  Mexico,  a  military  despotism — should 
these  powerful  States  be  enabled,  by  force  of  arms,  to  bring  this  project 
to  a  successful  issue,  within  their  own  borders,  and  to  extend  it  by  simi 
lar  means  over  their  weaker  neighbors,  would  such  a  movement,  how 
ever  successfully  achieved,  establish  any  right,  in  the  monarch  whom 
they  might  create,  to  the  sovereignty  of  other  portions  of  the  Union 
which  might  choose  to  keep  aloof  from  this  new  arrangement  ?  Would 


UNIVERB 


Virginia  and  Kentucky,  the  Carolinas  and  Louisiana,  be  in  any  manner 
bound  by  this  proceeding,  to  which  they  had  never  yielded  their  assent  ? 
Would  their  resistance  to  this  measure  merit  the  name  of  revolt  ? 
Would  they,  after  successfully  opposing  any  attempt  to  impose  this  new 
government  upon  their  unwilling  shoulders,  be  legally,  or  morally,  or  in 
any  other  way,  incapacitated  from  forming  new  political  connections 
with  each  other,  or  with  whomsoever  they  pleased,  upon  any  terms 
which,  in  their  judgment,  might  seem  best  calculated  to  promote  their 
liberty  and  happiness  ?  Would  the  consent  of  the  new  monarch  be  ne 
cessary  to  give  validity  to  such  compacts  ?  Would  a  wrong  be  inflicted 
upon  him  by  a  power  which  might  think  proper  to  favor  such  a  confede 
racy  ?  Is  it  possible  that  such  questions  as  these  can  be  seriously  put, 
or  doubts  be  entertained  respecting  them  by  any  sober,  intelligent  mind  ? 
Yet  there  are  men,  and  those  among  the  ablest  in  the  land,  who, 
under  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  assert  that  Texas  was,  and  is, 
in  contemplation  of  law,  an  integral  part  of  the  present  government 
of  Mexico,  bound  to  it  by  ties  which  she  has  no  rightful  authority 
to  dissolve ;  and  that,  without  the  assent  of  Mexico,  she  is  not  de 
jure  independent,  and  has  no  capacity  to  unite  herself  with  this  Re 
public — who  maintain  that,  by  the  mere  act  of  forming  such  a  union, 
we  are  violating  the  rights  of  Mexico,  and  inflicting  a  grievous  wrong 
upon  the  government  of  Santa  Anna. 


No.  VII. 

IT  is  apprehended  that  our  first  position  has  been  fully  established  ; 
that  it  may  confidently  be  asserted,  that  the  essential  facts  assumed  by 
gentlemen  who  deny  the  absolute,  unconditional,  and  unqualified  right 
of  Texas,  wholly  independent  of  any  assent  expressed  or  implied  by  the 
subsisting  government  of  Mexico,  to  establish  for  herself  any  form  of 
government  which  she  may  deem  expedient,  to  form  any  alliance  or 
connection  with  these  United  States,  or  who  insist  that  this  nation,  in 
acceding  to  any  such  connection,  would  thereby  violate  any  right  of 
Mexico,  or  furnish  her  with  any  just  cause  or  offence,  are  wholly  un 
warranted  and  unsupported  by  the  truth  of  the  case. 

We  may  now  advance  to  our  next  position  in  the  discussion.  The 
proposition  which  is  now  to  be  asserted  and  maintained  is  this :  that 
upon  the  supposition  that  Texas  did  originally  constitute  a  part  of  the 
territory  of  the  present  government  of  Mexico,  bound  to  it  as  an  inte 
gral  portion  of  that  community,  yet,  having  declared  her  separation  and 


26 

independence— having,  in  fact,  consummated  that  independence  by  a 
successful  resistance  to  all  the  efforts  of  Mexico  to  subjugate  her — hav 
ing  been  recognised  as  a  free  and  sovereign  State,  in  good  faith,  by  these 
United  States,  as  well  as  by  various  European  powers — she  is  perfectly, 
absolutely,  and  unconditionally  independent,  and  has  a  perfect,  absolute, 
and  unconditional  capacity  to  exercise  all  the  faculties  of  sovereignty ; 
among  which  is  the  right  to  unite  herself  in  any  manner,  and  upon  any 
terms,  which  she  may  think  expedient,  to  any  other,  although  foreign, 
State. 

By  the  terms  of  the  proposition,  as  thus  stated,  certain  facts  are  con 
ceded  for  the  sake  of  argument.  It  is  assumed  that  Texas,  at  one  time, 
formed  a  component  part  of  the  present  Republic  of  Mexico  ;  that  she 
has  separated  herself  from,  and  declared  herself  independent  of,  her  for 
mer  rightful  and  acknowledged  sovereign — facts  which,  it  has  been  fully 
demonstrated,  are  at  variance  with  the  truth  of  history.  Nor  does  the 
position  which  has  been  advanced  involve  any  inquiry  by  us  into  the 
causes  of  this  supposed  revolution,  or  any  judgment  as  to  which  party 
in  the  struggle  had  the  better  right.  This  is  a  subject  upon  which, 
however  clear  our  opinions  maybe  as  individuals,  we  are  not  authorized, 
as  a  nation,  to  decide.  The  facts  upon  which  our  conclusion  mainly 
.rests  are  uncontroverted  and  incontrovertible.  The  independence  of 
/  Texas  actually  exist ;  and  its  existence  has  been  publicly  acknowledged 
XJ>y  our  own  and  other  governments.  The  legitimate  result  from  this 
state  of  things  is,  it  is  believed,  that  as  regards  Texas  herself,  and  as  re 
gards  all  other  powers,  especially  those  by  whom  her  independence  has 
been  recognised,  her  former  connection  with  Mexico,  whatever  it  may 
sjhave  been,  has,  to  all  and  every  purpose,  been  absolutely  dissolved  ; 
that  she  has  as  perfect  a  right  to  unite  herself  with  this  Union  as  with 
Mexico  herself;  and  that  the  United  States,  in  acceding  to  such  a  con 
nection,  infringes  no  right  of  Mexico,  violates  no  injunction  of  the  law 
of  nations,  and,  consequently,  offers  no  offence  to  that  government. 
The  main,  if  not  the  only,  ground  which  has  been  advanced  by  the  oppo 
nents  of  this  doctrine,  is,  that,  notwithstanding  the  facts  incorporated 
into  the  propositions,  (which  are  not  controverted),  yet,  so  long  as  Mex 
ico  withholds  her  acknowledgment  of  the  independence  of  Texas,  and 
persists  in  asserting  her  lawful  right  to  sovereignty  over  her,  this  inde 
pendence  is  only  a  quasi  one  ;  that  it  is  inchoate  only,  and  imperfect ; 
and  that  other  nations  cannot,  without  a  violation  of  duty  towards  Mexi 
co,  disregard  or  do,  any  act  contrary  to  the  rights  of  that  power. 

Such  is  understood  to  be  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  objection  now 
to  be  considered  ;  and  it  is  my  present  purpose  to  demonstrate  (as  it  is 
thought  can  be  clearly  done)  that  it  is  at  variance  with  the  received 


27 

doctrines  of  the  law  of  nations,  and  emphatically  with  the  uniform  inter 
pretation  given  to  that  code  by  the  government  of  the  United  States. 
It  is  apparent,  that  this  objection  rests  upon  the  assumption,  that,  in  refer 
ence  to  the  relations  which  subsist  between  a  particular  government  and 
all  foreign  nations,  a  distinction  exists,  well  understoood  and  recognised 
between  a  sovereign  de  jure,  and  a  sovereign  de  facto.  To  apply  this 
doctrine  to  the  case  in  hand,  that,  although  Texas  is  de  facto  indepen 
dent,  yet,  so  long  as  Mexico  perseveres  in  asserting  her  supposed  origi 
nal  right  of  sovereignty,  she  must  be  recognised  as  the  de  jure  sove 
reign. 

It  is  said  this  distinction  is  assumed  to  exist ;  for  throughout  the  entire 
discussion,  no  citation,  it  is  believed,  has  been  made  from  any  authorita 
tive  writer  on  public  law  which  affords  it  the  slightest  countenance. 
With  great  deference  and  unfeigned  respect  to  the  very  distinguished 
individuals  who  have  lent  to  this  doctrine  the  weight  of  their  authority, 
it  may  with  great  confidence  be  asserted,  that  it  has  no  foundation  or 
support  in  the  law  of  nations.  No  such  distinction  will  be  discovered 
in  Grotius  or  Vattel,  or  other  eminent  writers  on  this  science.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  principles  which  pervade  that  code,  as  well  as  those 
which  have  been  practically  adopted  and  enforced  in  the  intercourse  of 
nations,  are  diametrically  at  variance  v/ith  any  such  idea.  Drawing  our 
conclusions  from  these  sources,  we  find  this  doctrine  theoretically  assert 
ed  and  practically  acted  upon,/tKai  the  sovereign  or  sovereignty  in  fact^ 
which  is  in  actual  possession  and  enjoyment  of  power,  whether  rightfully 
or  wrongfully  obtained,  is  that  alone  which  foreign  nations  are  under  any 
obligation,  or  have  any  authority,  to  recognise.  It  is  for  the  acts  of  the 
actual  rulers  that  the  nation  is  responsible  to  other  governments,  whe 
ther  they  have  acquired  their  authority  by  constitutional  means  or  by 
lawless  usurpation.  While  the  matter  is  in  controversy,  they  assert  the_, 
right  of  foreign  nations  to  interpose  in  the  contest  in  favor  of  the  party 
whom  they  suppose  in  good  faith  to  have  the  better  right ;  but,  the  fact 
being  established  by  the  successful  termination  of  the  struggle,  they 
have  no  further  right  to  interpose  ;  nor  are  they  empowered  to  look  be 
yond  the  mere  fact  of  possession.  This  is,  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt, 
the  rule  prescribed  by  writers  on  public  law  ;  and  the  numerous  instan 
ces  in  which  it  has  been  asserted  and  acted  upon,  are  familiar  to  every 
reader  of  modern  history. 


28 


No.  VIII. 

THE  doctrine  under  examination,  which  distinguishes  between  a  de 
jure  and  a  de  facto  sovereignty,  and  which,  it  is  contended,  has  no  place 
in  the  code  of  international  law,  will  appear,  upon  examination,  to  be 
one  exclusively  belonging  to  the  municipal  law  of  England.  Even  in  that 
country  it  is  of  doubtful  and  uncertain  existence,  restricted  by  the  best 
writers  within  very  narrow  and  not  very  precise  limits ;  and,  when 
correctly  interpreted,  is  not  susceptible  of  application  to  the  controversies 
which  arise  between  independent  nations. 

Such  as  it  is,  this  doctrine  originated  in  the  disputed  successions  for 
the  crown  of  England,  which  for  so  many  years  unsettled  all  the  founda 
tions  of  social  order,  and  deluged  the  country  with  blood.  Elackstone 
furnishes  us  with  a  succinct  view  of  its  origin,  in  the  first  volume  of  his 
Commentaries ;  and  other  distinguished  English  common  law  lawyers 
either  refuse  any  countenance  to  it  as  a  principle  of  law,  or  so  interpret 
its  meaning,  or  restrict  its  application,  as  to  le£fve  it  little  more  than  a 
nominal  existence.  Blackstone  informs  us  that  "  the  crown  descended 
regularly  from  Henry  IV  to  his  son  and  grandson,  Henry  V  and  VI ;  in 
the  latter  of  whose  reigns,  the  House  of  York  asserted  their  dormant 
title,  and,  after  imbruing  the  kingdom  in  blood  and  confusion  for  seven 
years  together,  at  last  established  it  in  the  person  of  Edward  IV.  At 
his  accession  to  the  throne,  after  a  breach  of  the  succession  that  continued 
for  three  descents,  and  above  threescore  years,  the  distinction  of  a  king 
de  jure  and  a  king  de  facto  began  to  be  first  taken,  in  order  to  indemnify 
such  as  had  submitted  to  the  late  establishment,  and  to  provide  for  the 
peace  of  the  kingdom,  by  confirming  all  honors  conferred,  and  all  acts 
done  by  those  who  were  now  called  usurpers,  not  tending  to  the  disin 
heritance  of  the  rightful  heir.  In  Statute  1,  Edw.  IV,  c.  1,  the  three 
Henries  are  styled  "  late  kings  of  England  successively,  in  dede  and  not 
of  ryghte."  And  in  all  the  charters  which  I  have  met  with  of  King 
Edward,  wherever  he  has  occasion  to  speak  of  any  of  the  line  of  Lan 
caster,  he  calls  them  "nuper  de  facto  et  non  de  jure  reyes  Anglice." 

Such  is  the  account  of  the  introduction  of  this  phrase  into  the  munici 
pal  code  of  England,  and  the  view  which  it  exhibits  is  corroborated  by 
the  interpretation  which  Lord  Coke  had  long  before  given  to  it — an 
interpretation  which,  if  correct,  at  once  precludes  the  idea  of  incorporating 
it  into  the  code  of  international  law.  Lord  Coke  says,  that  "  a  king  de 
facto  is  one  that  is  in  actual  possession  of  a  crown,  and  hath  no  lawful 
right  to  the  same  ;  in  which  sense,  it  is  opposed  to  a  king  de  jure,  who 


29 

hath  right  to  a  crown,  but  is  out  of  possession."  Blackstone,  in  his  4th 
Commentaries,  adopts  fully  this  interpretation,  and  speaks  of  a  "  usurper 
who  hath  got  possession  of  the  throne"  as  the  king  de  facto,  and  illus 
trates  his  idea  by  putting  the  case  of  "  the  king  of  Poland  or  Morocco" 
invading  the  kingdom,  and  by  any  means  obtaining  possession  of  the 
crown. 

Surely  those  who  have  interpolated  this  phrase  into  the  law  of  nations, 
and  applied  it  to  questions  and  to  parties  with  which  it  has  no  rational 
or  just  connection,  must  have  equally  misapprehended  its  true  significa 
tion  and  its  appropriate  position.  It  presupposes  a  previous  judgment 
upon  the  only  question  over  which  no  foreign  power  has  or  can  right 
fully  exercise  any  jurisdiction — the  question  of  right  in  the  one  party, 
and  absence  of  right  in  the  other.  To  apply  it  to  the  position  which 
Mexico  and  Texas  occupy,  and  the  relations  which  subsist  between  them, 
it  admits  of  no  other  signification  than  is  expressed  in  this  paraphrase — 
although  Texas  is  in  fact  in  the  actual  posses&ion  and  enjoyment  of 
sovereignty,  it  is  only  de  facto ;  for  "  she  has  no  lawful  right  to  the 
same  ;"  it  belongs,  de  jure,  to  Mexico,  because  she  "  hath  right,  but  is 
out  of  possession."  Upon  this  question  of  right,  we  confessedly  have 
no  authority,  as  a  nation,  to  decide,  although  it  will  be  difficult  to  find  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States  who  will  deny  the  justice  of  the  case  to  be 
with  Texas.  One  of  our  most  distinctly  expressed  doctrines — one  uni 
formly  maintained  throughout  our  entire  history,  under  each  successive 
administration,  under  all  circumstances,  and  by  every  party — is  that 
which  asserts  the  right  of  every  nation  to  govern  itself  in  its  own  way, 
without  the  intervention  of  foreign  powers,  and  the  absence  of  all  right 
on  the  part  of  foreign  governments  to  interfere  in  the  domestic  contro 
versies  of  other  nations. 

These  were  the  principles  announced  as  those  by  which  we  were 
animated  during  the  struggle  between  Mexico  and  Spain  ;  and  they  are 
so  distinctly  stated  by  Mr.  Van  Buren,  when,  in  1829,  he  held  the  office 
of  Secretary  of  State,  as  to  supersede  the  necessity,  at  this  time,  of 
making  further  citations  ;  which,  however,  might  be  almost  indefinitely 
multiplied.  In  a  despatch  from  Mr.  Van  Buren  to  Mr.  Butler,  dated 
16th  October,  1829,  he  says :  "  The  United  States,  drawn  by  a  com 
munity  of  views  and  feelings  towards  a  young  nation,  engaged,  as  they 
once  had  been,  in  a  struggle  for  life  and  death — for  independence  and 
freedom — continued  to  sympathise  with  Mexico  ;  and  nothing  but  their 
immutable  principles  of  non-interference  in  the  domestic  concerns  of 
other  nations,  and  of  inviolable  neutrality  towards  belligerents,  prevented 
them  from  extending  a  helping  hand  to  the  young  republics  of  America. " — 
"  From  the  moment  that,  consistently  with  their  rule  of  conduct  and  the 


30 

established  principles  of  public  law,  they  could  consider  Mexico  and 
Spain  as  two  distinct  nations,  which  fate  had  for  ever  separated,  the 
United  States  pronounced  the  freedom  of  America  j  and  their  Congress, 
with  a  unanimity  of  which  the  history  of  legislation  affords  no  example, 
invited  Mexico  and  her  sister  republics  to  take  their  rank  among  the 
independent  nations  of  the  earth.  The  influence  which  this  important 
event  had  upon  the  conduct  of  the  European  powers  is  too  well  known 
to  require  elucidation.  The  example  of  the  United  States  was  followed 
almost  immediately  ;  and  Mexico,  a  little  more  than  one  year  after  she 
had  proclaimed  her  independence,  was  represented  at  Washington  by  a 
minister,  invested  with  all  the  prerogatives  of  an  ambassador  of  a  free 
State,  and  diplomatic  and  commercial  relations  were  soon  after  established 
between  her  and  the  most  influential  powers  of  the  Old  World/' 

In  this  State  paper,  no  allusion  is  made  to  the  new  doctrine  of  a  quasi 
independence — of  a  distinction  between  a  sovereignty  de  facto  and  de 
jure.  The  non-interference  by  the  United  States  in  the  struggle  for 
freedom,  during  its  continuance,  is  placed  upon  the  rightful  ground — 
"  the  immutable  principle  of  non-interference  in  the  domestic  concerns  of 
other  nations" — while  that  independence  was  neither  declared  nor  con 
summated  ;  and,  when  thus  declared  and  recognised,  upon  the  ground 
equally  sacred  among  us — that  of  "  inviolable  neutrality  among  bellige 
rents."  These  principles  are  ample,  in  all  similar  cases,  to  furnish 
guides  to  our  conduct.  They  are  based  upon  a  solid  foundation,  viz  : 
that  among  foreign  States  all  occupy  an  equal  position — all  have  equal 
rights — no  judgment  can  be  pronounced  upon  the  questions  which  divide 
them.  The  de  jure  and  de  facto  doctrine,  on  the  other  hand,  implies 
inferiority  of  position,  inferiority  of  right,  and  the  capacity  of  a  foreign 
power  to  pass  its  judgment  on  these  questions. 


No.  IX. 

IN  the  last  preceding  number  of  these  remarks,  it  was  designed  to 
establish  the  broad  and  comprehensive  doctrine,  as  a  part  of  the  great 
code  of  laws  which  regulates  the  intercourse  between  different  nations, 
that  the  law  of  non-intervention  and  of  neutrality  are  distinct  branches 
of  the  system,  founded  upon  and  implying  an  equality  among  the  mem 
bers  of  the  great  family  governed  by  it ;  and  that  not  only  is  the  doctrine 
of  a  distinction  between  a  sovereignty  dejure  and  de  facto  not  to  be  found 
among  its  provisions,  but  it  is  directly  at  variance  with  its  best  under 
stood  and  most  clearly  denned  provisions. 


31 

It  is  now  proposed  to  show  that  this  is  in  precise  accordance  with  the 
opinions  and  acts  of  the  government  of  the  United  States  at  all  times, 
and  under  all  circumstances.  The  doctrine  which  has  evrer  been  avowed""1 
and  maintained  by  this  nation  upon  this  question,  is  understood  to  be 
this  :  that  when  the  subsisting  government  is  changed  in  any  foreign 
country,  either  by  a  revolution  or  by  a  separation  of  its  parts — by  the 
overthrow  of  the  former  rulers,  or  by  an  attempt  of  a  portion  to  disen 
gage  itself  from  an  existing  connection  with  another  part,  the  new  sov 
ereignty  is  deemed  perfect  and  absolute,  when  either  it  is  conceded  by 
the  old  sovereign,  or  is  recognised  by  our  own  executive  as  having  been 
accomplished  in  point  of  fact. 

This  was  the  policy  of  Washington  when  he  recognised  the  various 
phases  which  the  government  of  France  assumed  during  her  revolution. 
It  was  pursued  by  every  successive  administration  from  that  day  to  the 
present.  Disclaiming,  as  we  uniformly  did,  all  right  to  interfere  in  the 
existing  struggles  which  upheaved  the  old  established  forms  of  govern 
ment,  and  overthrew  the  thrones  in  most  of  the  ancient  monarchies  of 
Europe,  we  limited  our  view  to  those  actually  in  possession  of  power — 
recognised  the  successive  rulers  who  rapidly  rose,  like  phantoms,  to 
places  of  authority,  and  as  speedily  sunk,  to  be  in  turn  succeeded  by 
others  whose  career  was  equally  evanescent.  The  thrones  of  Naples, 
Spain,  and  Portugal  were  vacated,  and  the  United  States  uniformly 
acknowledged  the  existing  sovereignties.  They  did  more ;  they  as 
uniformly  insisted  that  the  nation  was  responsible  for  the  outrages  perpe 
trated  upon  the  rights  of  our  citizens,  by  what  were  termed  the  intrusive 
governments.  France  was  required  to  make  compensation  for  injuries 
which  we  had  sustained  under  the  administration  of  the  Directory,  the 
consulate,  the  Emperor ;  and  the  house  of  Bourbon  was  called  upon  to 
pay  for  wrongs  inflicted  by  their  own  enemies,  which  reclamations  were 
finally  adjusted  by  Louis  Philippe.  Spain  indemnified  us  for  violations 
of  our  rights  by  the  French  authorities  ;  Naples  for  those  we  had  suf 
fered  under  the  reign  of  Murat.  This  principle  is  at  this  time  univer 
sally  recognised  as  the  doctrine  of  the  law  of  nations  throughout  Europe, 
alternately  asserted  and  submitted  to  by  every  one  of  the  powers  of  the 
Old  World. 

The  recognition  of  a  subsisting  sovereignty  in  a  foreign  nation,  is  a 
solemn  and  authoritative  act,  to  be  executed  by  that  department  of  the 
government  to  which  the  Constitution  has  entrusted  it.  When  the  exec 
utive  has  thus  recognised  the  fact  of  independence,  it  is  without  qualifi 
cation  or  condition,  and  is  binding  upon  the  nation.  The  new  sovereign 
is  deemed,  to  every  purpose,  sovereign,  when  either  his  existence  is 
recognised  by  our  own  government,  or  is  acknowledged  by  the  pre-ex- 


32 

^ 
isting  superior  authority.     Such  was  the  view  judicially  taken  of  this 

question  by  the  Supreme  Court,  in  1808.  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  in 
delivering  the  opinion  of  the  court  in  a  case  involving  this  point,  thus 
expresses  himself: 

"  The  colony  of  St.  Domingo,  originally  belonging  to  France,  had 
broken  the  bond  which  connected  her  with  the  parent  State,  had  de 
clared  herself  independent,  and  was  endeavoring  to  support  that  inde 
pendence  by  arms.  France  still  asserted  her  claim  of  sovereignty,  and 
had  employed  a  military  force  in  support  of  that  claim.  A  war  de  facto 
then  unquestionably  existed  between  France  and  St.  Domingo.  It  has 
been  argued  that  the  colony,  having  thus  far  maintained  its  sovereignty 
by  arms,  must  be  considered  and  treated  by  other  nations  as  sovereign  in 
fact,  and  as  being  entitled  to  maintain  the  same  intercourse  with  the 
world  that  is  maintained  by  other  belligerent  nations.  In  support  of 
this  argument, 'the  doctrine  of  Vattel  has  been  particularly  referred  to. 
But  the  language  of  that  writer  is  obviously  addressed  to  sovereigns,  not 
to  courts.  It  is  for  governments  to  decide  whether  they  will  consider 
St.  Domingo  as  an  independent  nation  ;  and,  until  such  decision  shall  be 
made,  or  France  shall  relinquish  her  claim,  courts  of  justice  must  consider 
the  ancient  course  of  things  as  remaining  unaltered,  and  the  sovereign 
power  of  France  over  that  colony  as  still  subsisting." 

In  that  case,  the  late  lamented  Mr.  Du  Ponceau  was  questioned  by  the 
court,  and  in  answer,  observed  :  "  The  question  is,  whether  France  can, 
by  the  force  of  the  law  of  nations,  seize  and  confiscate  vessels  of  neutral 
nations  trading  to  Hayti  ?  If  it  is  admitted  that  the  situation  of  France 
is  a  war,  it  follows  that  France  is  at  war  and  we  are  neutrals.  If  neu 
trals,  we  cannot  judge  of  anything  de  jure  which  is  the  subject  of  con 
troversy  between  France  and  Hayti.  Hayti  contends  that,  de  jure  she 
is  an  independent  State.  France  contends  that,  de  jure,  Hayti  is  her 
dependent  colony.  Of  this,  as  neutrals,  we  are  not  permitted  to  judge. 
We  find  them  at  war  together,  and  at  issue  on  this  question  of  dependent 
or  independent.  We  must  take  them  both  to  be  right."  Further  on, 
he  adds,  that  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  claims  of  France  to  the 
sovereignty  of  Hayti :  "  We  who  are  not  bound  to  support  her  dignity, 
recognize  her  rights  only  so  far  as  they  are  sanctioned  by  the  laws  of  a 
war  of  the  nature  of  that  in  which  she  is  engaged,  and  no  further  ;  and 
they  do  not  bind  us  further  than  the  laws  of  war,  applied  to  the  par 
ticular  war  existing,  expressly  authorized  ;  but  they  bind  us  so  far." 

This  learned  jurist — and  few  men  in  this  or  any  other  country  have 
been  more  distinguished  for  a  large  and  comprehensive  acquaintance 
with  public  law — maintained  the  doctrine  that,  even  during  the  period 
when  the  parties  were  asserting  their  respective  claims  and  pretensions, 


33 

flag  ante  bello,  the  rights  of  either  party  rested  exclusively  upon  the  laws 
of  war,  and  the  obligations  of  other  nations  were  limited  exclusively  to 
those  of  neutrality.  So  far  as  the  particular  issue  was  involved  we  have 
seen  the  judgment  pronounced  by  the  Supreme  Court.  That  question  is 
definitely  settled,  so  far  as  such  foreign  nation  is  concerned,  by  the  recog 
nition  by  the  constitutional  authority  of  an  existing  independence.  That 
being  settled,  nothing  else  remains  but  the  ordinary  rights  of  bellige 
rents  and  the  ordinary  obligations  of  neutrality. 

It  has  thus,  it  is  apprehended,  been  conclusively  demonstrated  by  the 
highest  authority  recognized  in  our  land — the  opinions  and  acts  of  our 
most  eminent  statesmen,  the  opinions  and  judgments  of  our  ablest  jurists 
— that,  even  were  an  active  war  now  in  prosecution  between  Mexico 
and  Texas,  for  the  purpose  of  the  recovery,  by  the  former,  of  her 
alleged  sovereignty,  yet,  from  the  instant  the  United  States,  in  good  faith, 
acknowledged  the  independence  of  the  latter,  we  are  bound  to  regard 
the  two  contending  parties  as  equally  right  in  the  contest,  and  our  only 
obligation  is,  to  extend  to  them  equally  the  same  measure  of  justice  ; 
and  that  is  to  be  regulated  by  their  respective  rights  as  belligerents,  and 
our  duties  to  each  of  them,  as  ascertained  by  the  laws  of  neutrality. 

The  only  question,  then,  which  remains  open  upon  this  point,  is, 
whether  the  United  States  may  lawfully  and  without  affording  just  cause 
of  offence  to  Mexico  as  a  belligerent,  in  good  faith  purchase  Texas 
from  her  present  owners  ?  or  with  the  assent  of  her  people,  apcording 
to  their  institutions,  unite  her  to  ourselves  ? 

Upon  this  point,  we  have  authority  equally  high  as  any  we  have  cited 
to  sustain  our  previous  views.  During  the  administration  of  Mr.  Jeffer 
son,  the  United  States  opened  negotiations  for  the  purchase  of  Louisiana 
from  France.  It  was  about  the  period  of  the  termination  of  the  brief 
and  hollow  peace  brought  about  by  the  treaty  of  Amiens.  Great 
Britain  meditated  a  military  expedition,  for  the  purpose  of  subjugating 
that  province  to  her  own  dominion  ;  and  the  question  naturally  present 
ed  itself,  how  will  England  regard  this  acquisition  of  territory,  which  she 
entertained  every  hope  of  subjugating  to  her  own  dominion  from  a  for 
eign  enemy  ?  Anticipating  an  objection  from  this  quarter,  Mr.  Madison, 
on  the  75th  of  May,  1803,  addressed  to  Mr.  Livingston,  our  Minister  in 
France,  a  despatch,  in  which  he  says  :  "  As  the  question  may  arise,  how 
far,  in  a  state  of  war,  one  of  the  parties  can,  of  right,  convey  territory  to 
a  neutral  power,  and  thereby  deprive  its  enemy  of  the  chance  of  conquest 
incident  to  war,  especially  when  that  conquest  may  have  been  actually 
projected,  it  is  though  proper  to  observe  to  you — 1st,  that,  in  the  present 
case  the  project  of  peaceable  acquisition  by  the  United  States  originated 
prior  to  the  war,  and,  consequently,  before  a  project  of  conquest  could 
3 


34 

have  existed  ;  2d,  that  the  right  of  a  neutral  to  procure  for  itself,  by  a 
bond  fide  transaction,  property  of  any  sort  from  a  belligerant  power, 
ought  not  to  be  frustrated  by  the  chance  that  a  rightful  conquest  thereof 
might  thereby  be  precluded.  A  contrary  doctrine  would  sacrifice  the 
just  interests  of  peace  to  the  unreasonable  pretensions  of  war,  and  the 
positive  rights  of  one  nation  to  the  possible  rights  of  another.  A  restraint 
on  the  alienation  of  territory,  from  a  nation  at  war  to  a  nation  at  peace, 
is  imposed  only  in  cases  where  the  proceeding  might  have  a  collusive 
reference  to  the  existence  of  the  war,  and  might  be  calculated  to  save 
the  property  from  danger,  by  placing  it  in  secret  trust,  to  be  re-conveyed 
on  the  return  of  peace.  No  objection  of  this  sort  can  be  made  to  the 
acquisitions  we  have  in  view."  In  conclusion,  he  says:  "With  these 
observations,  you  will  be  left  to  do  the  best  you  can,  under  all  circum 
stances,  for  the  interests  of  your  country  ;  keeping  in  mind  that  the  rights 
we  assert  are  clear,  that  the  objects  we  pursue  are  just." 


MEXICO. 


No.  I. 

THE  present  attitude  of  the  government  of  the  United  States  and 
Mexico  is  calculated  to  awaken  the  serious  attention  of  the  people 
of  this  country,  and  demands  the  most  deliberate  consideration 
of  the  Executive.  Mexico  has  thought  proper  to  suspend  all 
diplomatic  intercourse  with  the  United  States.  She  has  taken  umbrage 
at  the  proceedings  of  the  President  and  of  Congress,  in  relation  to  the 
annexation  of  Texas  ;  and  while  she  has  withdrawn  her  representative 
from  the  United  States,  declines  all  further  correspondence  with  our 
minister  at  her  Capital.  This  is  a  high-handed  measure.  It  cannot,  of 
course,  be  of  indefinite  duration.  It  is  utterly  impossible  for  the  two 
countries,  between  whom  so  many  relations  subsist,  to  remain  for  ever  in 
this  position  ;  nor  can  the  United  States,  with  a  proper  feeling  of  self- 
respect,  and  w^ith  a  just  regard  to  its  own  duties  to  its  citizens,  submit  to 
such  a  condition  of  things. 

It  becomes,  however,  important  to  inquire  what  is  to  be  the  result  of 
this  singular  announcement.  Mexico  has  again  assumed  a  menacing 
tone,  and  threatened,  as  she  has  before  done,  to  vindicate  what  she  calls 
her  wounded  honor  and  her  injured  rights,  by  a  declaration  of  war.  On 
a  former  occasion,  when  similar  consequences  were  held  out  to  deter  us 
from  the  course  which  we  thought  our  honor  and  rights  required,  Mr. 
Webster  administered  a  rebuke  which  led  to  a  withdrawal  of  this  offensive 
language.  If,  said  he,  "  the  peace  of  the  two  countries  is  to  be  disturb 
ed,  the  responsibility  well  be  devolved  on  Mexico.  She  must  be 
answerable  for  consequences.  The  United  States,  let  it  be  again  repeat 
ed,  desire  peace.  It  would  be  with  infinite  pain  that  they  should  find 
themselves  in  hostile  relations  with  any  of  the  new  governments  of  this 
Continent.  But  their  government  is  regulated,  limited,  full  of  the  spirit  of 
liberty,  but  surrounded,  nevertheless,  with  just  restraints  ;  and  greatly 
and  fervently  as  it  desires  peace  with  all  States,  and  especially  with  its 
more  immediate  neighbors,  yet  no  fear  of  a  different  state  of  things  can 
be  allowed  to  interrupt  its  course  of  equal  and  exact  justice  to  all 


36 

nations,  nor   to  jostle   it   out  of  the   constitutional   orbit  in  which  it 
revolves." 

Should  this  unhappy  and  misgoverned  country  rashly  undertake  to 
carry  these  threats  into  execution  by  a  declaration  of  war,  but  one  course 
will  be  left  for  the  United  States  to  pursue.  She  will  be  compelled  to 
prosecute  this  war  with  vigor,  and  press  it  to  a  successful  close  with 
all  promptitude. 

Should  it,  however,  (as  there  seems  some  reason  to  anticipated),  ba 
decided  by  Mexico  to  abstain  from  an  appeal  to  arms,  and  to  rest  it  in 
the  position  she  has  assumed,  of  a  mere  discontinuance  of  diplomatic 
intercourse,  then  it  behooves  us  to  determine  upon  the  course  which  it 
is  our  right  and  duty  to  adopt.  It  becomes,  also,  an  important  inquiry 
whether,  even  before  Mexico  shall  finally  determined  upon  her  ulterior 
course,  it  would  not  be  advisable  and  becoming  to  anticipate  her  deci 
sion,  and  afford  her  an  opportunity  of  bringing  the  subject  of  controversy 
to  the  more  amicable  arbitrament  of  negotiation. 

The  citizens  of  the  United  States  have  large  claims  upon  Mexico. 
They  are  of  a  very  aggravated  character,  and  many  of  them  of  long 
standing.  A  portion  of  these  have  already  been  investigated,  and  the 
amount  of  compensation  adjusted.  Much  the  greater  part,  however, 
remain  unliquidated  ;  but  both  governments  have  solemnly  and  mutually 
bound  themselves  by  positive  treaty  to  examine  and  decide  upon  them. 

It  cannot  for  a  moment  be  supposed  that  the  United  States  will  assent 
to  a  relinquishment  of  these  claims,  or  suffer  Mexico  to  maintain  her 
assumed  silence  in  regard  to  them.  If  she  thinks  proper  to  terminate 
her  official  intercourse  with  this  government  because  she  complains  of  our 
conduct  in  regard  to  Texas,  she  cannot  be  permitted  to  suppose  that,  in 
this  manner  and  under  this  pretext,  she  can  avoid  the  payment  of  our 
just  demands  upon  her.  We  believe  that,  in  our  proceedings  relative  to 
Texas,  we  have  done  no  wrong  to  Mexico,  have  violated  none  of  her 
rights,  and  have  contravened  no  treaty  stipulations,  and  no  requirement  of 
national  law.  Mexico  asserts  the  contrary.  To  break  off  all  intercourse 
between  the  parties  is  certainly  an  unusual  way  of  adjusting  these  con 
flicting  pretensions,  and  a  novel  mode  of  obtaining  redress  for  an  alleged 
injury.  The  question  is  open  ;  and  so  far  as  that  question  merely  is 
concerned,  Mexico  is  certainly  at  perfect  liberty  either  to  make  it  the 
subject  of  amicable  discussion,  or  to  pout  in  sullen  silence,  as  she  may 
think  most  conducive  to  her  interests,  and  most  reconcileable  to  her  own 
estimate  of  national  honor. 

In  regard,  however,  to  her  obligations  to  make  compensation  to  our 
citizens,  the  case  is  wholly  different.  Our  government  has  repeatedly 
asserted,  fjn  every  form  and  mode  which  our  institutions  allow^j  that 


37 

Mexico  has  inflicted  upon  us  serious  injuries,  has  perpetrated  wrongs 
which  she  is  bound  to  redress,  and  that  the  government  of  the  United 
States  is  under  imperative  obligations  to  see  that  ample  compensation  in 
provided  for  them.  Mexico  has  herself  acknowledged  the  justice  of  the 
charge/  In  regard  to  a  portion  of  the  cases,  the  damages  have  been  liqui 
dated  by  a  board,  created  by  the  joint  action  of  the  two  parties ;  at  the  par 
ticular  solicitation  of  Mexico,  a  period  of  five  years  was  liberally  allow 
ed  her,  within  which  to  pay  the  amount  awarded  against  her.  The 
money  was  to  be  paid  in  quarterly  instalments.  At  this  moment, 
five  of  these  instalments  are  in  the  arrear.  In  regard  to  two  of  them,  a 
singular,  and — to  the  unfortunate  claimants,  an  inexplicable — mystery 
hangs  over  the  subject.  The  official  dignitaries  of  both  countries  have 
averred  that  the  instalments  of  April  and  July,  1844,  were  in  fact  paid  to 
the  agent  of  the  American  government  in  August  last ;  and  this  assertion, 
so  far  as  the  public  is  apprised,  has  never  been  officially  contradicted. 
Nevertheless,  the  money  has  not  yet  been  received  in  Washington  ;  and 
where  it  actually  is,  is  still  a  profound  secret.  But  the  three  last  instal 
ments,  due  in  October,  January,  and  April,  have  unquestionably  not  been 
paid  ;  and  Mexico  is  in  default  at  least  to  that  extent. 

In  regard  to  the  unliquidated  claims,  Mexico  also  has  solemnly  stipu 
lated  to  provide  for  their  adjustment  and  payment.  A  convention  was 
framed  in  her  own  Capital,  under  her  own  immediate  supervision,  pro 
viding  for  this  adjustment.  Its  general  provisions  have  been  acceded  to 
by  both  governments,  and  certain  modifications  were  suggested  by  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States,  in  no  degree  affecting  the  general  principles 
which  had  been  mutually  recognized.  Yet  this  instrument,  thus  in 
complete,  has  been  before  the  Mexican  government  for  more  than  a 
twelvemonth ;  and,  during  this  entire  period,  she  has  not  deigned  to 
reply  to  the  reiterated  and  importunate  call  of  our  minister  for  her  decision 
in  regard  to  it. 

It  becomes,  then,  an  important  and  interesting  question,  What  course 
do  the  interests  of  the  United  States  and  her  obligations  to  her  citizens  re 
quire  to  be  adopted?  The  subject  will  be  pursued  in  a  subsequent 
number. 


No.  II. 


THE  inquiry  which  has  been  proposed  is,  what  course  ought  the  Uni 
ted  States  to  pursue  in  the  present  position  of  affairs  between  her  and 


33 

Mexico  ?  The  question  assumes,  as  its  basis,  the  now-existing  circum 
stances  between  the  two  nations.  It  assumes,  that  now  the  question  is 
to  be  answered,  now  the  course  is  to  be  determined.  Before  Mexico 
shall  have  further  committed  herself — before  affairs  have  taken  a  direc 
tion  which  it  might  be  difficult,  if  not  impracticable  to  change — how  are 
we  to  act  ? 

As  has  been  shown,  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  have  claims  to 
a  very  large  amount,  (probably  to  the  extent  of  at  least  ten  millions  of 
dollars)  upon  the  government  of  Mexico.  The  validity  of  these  claims 
has  been  recognized  by  both  nations,  and  the  national  faith  of  the  United 
States  has  been  pledged  that  the  payment  of  them  must  and  will  be  in 
sisted  on.  Mexico  has  taken  offence  on  a  collateral  and  independent 
question,  and  closed  the  ordinary  channel  of  national  intercourse. 

The  government  of  the  United  States  has  been  compelled,  in  conse 
quence  of  the  hostile  demonstrations  on  the  part  of  Mexico,  to  despatch 
a  powerful  squadron  to  the  gulf,  prepared  to  prevent  or  resist  any  war 
like  movements.  The  naval  force  in  the  Pacific  is,  of  course,  apprised 
of  the  posture  of  affairs.  Troops  have  been  assembled  on  our  southern 
frontier,  ready  to  act  as  circumstances  may  demand. 

These  proceedings,  however,  are  purely  and  exclusively  defensive. 
Unless  Mexico  should  commence  hostilities,  nothing  will  be  attempted 
on  our  side.  The  presence  of  an  imposing  force  on  her  seaboard,  and  of 
an  army  on  her  northern  frontier,  may  operate  to  deter  Mexico  from  the 
egregious  folly  of  declaring  war,  but  it  is  impossible  to  anticipate  what 
her  wilfulness  may  lead  to. 

As  regards  our  own  course,  it  would  be  equally  unwise  and  unbecom 
ing  for  us  to  wait  for  the  development  of  her  views  and  conduct.  Our 
proceedings  should  be  independent  of  her  movements,  and  dictated  alone 
by  a  regard  to  our  own  rights,  duties,  and  interests.  The  history  of  our 
country  furnishes  a  precedent  for  our  instruction,  and  points  out  a  course 
which,  at  the  time,  commanded  the  general  approbation  of  the  nation 
and  of  the  world. 

In  1833,  during  the  administration  of  General  Jackson,  a  case  almost 
parallel  occurred.  By  the  treaty  of  July  4, 1831,  France  had  stipulated 
to  pay  twenty-five  millions  of  francs  in  satisfaction  of  the  claims  of  Ame 
rican  citizens  on  that  government,  for  illegal  seizures  of  their  property, 
and  violations  of  their  rights.  The  money  was  to  be  paid  by  instal 
ments  of  certain  sums,  at  specified  periods.  The  King  of  the  French, 
who  had  concluded  the  treaty,  used  every  exertion,  and  employed  all 
his  influence,  to  obtain  from  the  legislative  department  an  appropriation 
to  enable  him  to  fulfill  the  terms  of  the  arrangement.  From  causes  be 
yond  his  control,  he  had  been  unsuccessful  in  these  efforts.  Payment 


39 

was  withheld  ;  and  a  draft  drawn  by  the  American  government  on 
France  was  returned  protested  for  non-payment.  President  Jackson, 
keenly  sensitive  upon  every  subject  connected  with  the  honor  and  dignity 
of  the  nation,  transmitted  a  communication  to  Congress,  in  which  he 
employed  language  that  gave  offence  equally  to  the  French  government 
and  the  French  nation.  Under  the  influence  of  this  irritation,  France 
withdrew  her  minister,  tendered  his  passports  to  our  Representative  at 
her  court,  and  suspended  all  diplomatic  intercourse  with  the  United 
States.  Thus  far,  the  cases  are  strikingly  analogous  ;  but  great  and  im 
portant  differences  exist.  The  subject  of  the  treaty  arrangements  was 
the  same  in  both  instances — it  was  the  claims  of  private  citizens  of  the 
United  States  for  lawless  injuries  inflicted  upon  their  persons  and  pro 
perty  by  a  foreign  power.  In  both  cases  the  validity  of  these  claims, 
and  the  obligation  to  compensate  for  these  wrongs,  had  been  secured  by 
positive  treaty  stipulations.  In  both  cases  these  conventional  arrange 
ments  had  been  violated,  and  payments  which  had  been  promised  were 
withheld.  The  ground  of  complaint  which  was  raised  was,  in  both 
cases,  purely  collateral.  In  the  one,  France  took  offence  at  the  lan 
guage  employed  by  the  President,  in  an  official  communication  to  Con 
gress.  In  the  other,  Mexico  has  taken  umbrage  at  the  proceedings  re 
lative  to  Texas.  In  each  case  the  offended  party  resented  the  supposed 
wrong  by  the  suspension  of  diplomatic  intercourse.  Here,  however,  the 
parallel  stops.  In  regard  to  France,  no  cause  of  complaint  existed  against 
the  executive.  The  King  and  his  ministry  had  faithfully  done  all  in 
their  power  to  comply  with  their  engagements  ;  they  had  recognized  the 
binding  force  of  the  treaty  which  they  had  signed;  they  employed  all  the 
constitutional  means  they  possessed  to  fulfil  their  obligations ;  they  had 
failed  in  their  efforts  merely  by  the  omission  of  the  Legislature  to  meet 
the  necessary  appropriations  ;  and  they  gave  the  most  satisfactory  assu 
rances  to  the  United  States,  that  they  would  persevere  in  their  exertions 
to  fulfil  their  engagements. 

How  widely  different  has  been  the  conduct  of  Mexico  ?  And  what 
a  contrast  does  it  exhibit  to  the  manly  and  honorable  course  of  the  French 
government !  From  the  moment  it  was  apprised  of  the  result  of  the~^ 
board  of  Commissioners,  every  effort  has  been  employed  by  the  Mexican 
executive  to  rouse  a  feeling  of  exasperation  and  hatred  against  the  gov 
ernment  and  people  of  the  United  States.  Every  epithet  of  opprobrium 
and  disgrace  has  been  lavished  upon  us/ The  representative  of  the  Prus-  x 
sian  government,  who  acted  as  umpire  between  the  American  and  Mexi 
can  commissioners,  came  in  for  his  share  of  these  pitiful  calumnies,  until 
they  were  stopped  by  the  decided  tone  assumed  by  the  Prussian  minister 
at  Mexico.  The  money  which  was  to  be  appropriated  to  the  payment 


40 

of  the  awards  was  raised  by  a  species  of  forced  contribution,  in  the  most 
oppressive  manner,  in  order  that,  with  every  dollar  that  was  paid,  might 
be  mingled  some  portion  of  exasperated  feeling  against  the  object  for 
which  it  was  to  be  applied,  and  the  people  who  were  to  receive  it ;  and 
when  the  money  was  thus  extorted  from  the  Mexican  people,  it  was 
diverted  from  its  appropriate  object,  and  either  went  into  the  general 
mass  of  public  expenditures,  or  contributed  to  fill  the  pockets  of  the 
unprincipled  men  who  administered  her  finances. 

It  is  the  government,  the  executive  of  Mexico,  which  has  been  faith 
less  to  its  engagements.  No  impediment  has  been  interposed  by  the 

^mission  of  the  Legislature  to  furnish  all  the  means  required.  It  is  the 
same  department  of  the  government  which  negotiated  and  signed  these 
treaties,  which  has,  for  more  than  a  twelvemonth,  failed  to  pay  according 
to  contract,  and  to  comply  with  their  solemn  engagements  to  make  pro 
vision  for  the  unadjusted  claims.  The  Texas  movement  is  a  mere  pre- 

^.text  for  this  flagrant  violation  of  duty  by  Mexico.  Her  perfidy  and  bad 
faith  are  of  earlier  date  than  any  complaint  on  her  part,  growing  out  of 
Texas  concerns.  During  the  entire  administrations  of  General  Jackson 
and  Mr.  Van  Buren,her  conduct  was  constantly  denounced  by  our  func 
tionaries,  both  at  home  and  in  Mexico,  as  faithless,  and  in  equal  defiance 
of  national  law  and  of  treaty  stipulations. 

These  views  are  now  thus  briefly  but  distinctly  presented,  because 
there  seems  to  have  been  the  most  extraordinary  and  inexcusable  igno 
rance  manifested  on  the  subject,  even  by  distinguished  members  of  Con 
gress.  In  the  course  of  our  numbers,  we  shall  probably  avail  ourselves 
of  the  opportunity  to  throw  some  light  upon  this  part  of  the  case,  and 
to  exhibit  the  character  of  the  outrages  upon  our  citizens,  in  which  the 
subsisting  claims  originated,  and  the  language  in  which  they  have  been 
denounced  by  every  American  functionary  who  ever  had  occasion  to 
speak  of  them. 


III. 

RETURNING  from  the  brief  digression  into  which  we  had  been  led  in 
contrasting  the  character  and  conduct  of  the  governments  of  France  and 
Mexico,  in  reference  to  their  treaty  engagements,  let  us  now  advert  to  the 
course  pursued  by  the  United  States  under  circumstances  so  strikingly 
analogous  to  those  in  which  we  now  find  ourselves  placed. 

In  his  message  to  Congress  of  December  7,  1835,  President  Jackson 


41 

presents  a  distinct  and  full  narrative  of  the  whole  action  cf  the  two 
governments  prior  and  subsequent  to  the  signature  of  the  treaty  of  July 
4, 1831.  Having  shown  that  France  was  clearly  in  the  wrong  in  placing 
the  construction  she  had  done  upon  his  former  communication  to  Congress 
in  which  she  thought  she  discovered  insinuations  of  bad  faith,  accom 
panied  by  what  she  understood  as  amounting  to  a  menace,  he  stated  that 
he  had  caused  "our  charge  d'affaires  at  Paris  to  be  instructed  to  ask  for 
the  final  determination  of  the  French  government ;  and,  in  the  event  of 
their  refusal  to  pay  the  instalments  now  due,  without  further  explana 
tions  to  return  to  the  United  States." 

This  demand  was  to  be  made  on  France  by  our  diplomatic  agent  at 
that  court,  after  and  notwithstanding  that  the  diplomatic  intercourse 
between  the  two  nations  had  already  been  closed.  That  suspension  did 
not,  in  the  judgment  of  President  Jackson  or  his  cabinet,  interpose  any 
obstacle  to  the  call  upon  that  government  to  fulfil  its  treaty  stipulations. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  was  regarded  as  a  step  which  our  interest  and  our 
rights  imperatively  required.  Nor  was  this  act  of  the  Executive  con 
demned  or  censured  by  any  portion  of  the  American  people. 

In  making  this  demand  on  France,  no  apology  or  explanation  was 
tendered  to  soothe  the  wounded  feelings  of  that  proud  and  gallant  nation. 
On  that  point,  the  President  thought  he  had  already  offered  every  ex 
planation  "  which  could  reasonably  be  asked  or  honorably  given."  He 
thought  he  could  not  do  more  "  without  national  degradation  ;"  and  he 
emphatically  adds  :  "  I  hope  it  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  say  that  such  a 
sacrifice  will  not  be  made  through  any  agency  of  mine.  The  honor  of 
my  country  shall  never  be  stained  by  an  apology  from  me  for  the  state 
ment  of  truth  and  the  performance  of  duty  ;  nor  can  I  give  any  explana 
tion  of  my  official  acts,  except  such  as  is  due  to  integrity  and  justice  and 
consistent  with  the  principles  on  which  our  institutions  have  been 
framed." 

In  reference  to  the  complaint  which  Mexico  has  made  of  the  pro 
ceedings  of  our  government  in  relation  to  Texas,  if  that  government  had 
thought  proper  to  make  it  the  subject  of  diplomatic  discussion,  doubtless 
the  Executive  would  frankly  and  courteously  have  met  the  question, 
and  exhibited  the  grounds  upon  which  it  thought  these  proceedings  stood 
vindicated  from  every  just  cause  of  reproach.  The  whole  matter  would 
have  been  discussed  in  a  way  soothing  to  the  pride  of  Mexico,  and  every 
sacrifice  which  could  with  propriety  be  yielded,  would  have  been  made 
to  her  feelings.  But  the  American  government  could  not,  and  cannot, 
admit  that  her  conduct  has  been  illegal,  or  in  violation  of  any  right  of 
Mexico.  We  can  neither  retract  what  has  been  done,  nor  apologize  for 


42 

it.  Mexico  has  denounced  the  measure  in  the  most  offensive  terms  and 
the  most  opprobrious  language  ;  and  this  government  would  be  warranted, 
by  every  principle  which  regulates  the  intercourse  between  nations,  in 
demanding  and  exacting  a  withdrawal  of  these  expressions  before  she 
would  condescend  to  furnish  any  explanation  to  Mexico,  or  to  state  the 
grounds  upon  which  she  rests  for  her  justification. 

But  none  of  these  considerations  dispense  with  the  propriety  of  making 
a  formal  and  peremptory  demand  upon  Mexico,  for  the  immediate  pay 
ment  of  all  the  unpaid  instalments  of  the  sums  already  awarded,  and  the 
adoption  of  prompt  measures  for  the  liquidation  and  satisfaction  of  out- 
jstanding  claims. 

The  language  of  Mr.  Livingston,  in  his  communication  with  the  Duke 
de  Broglie  of  the  25th  April,  1825,  exhibits  the  views  then  taken  by  the 
American  government  of  its  rights  and  obligations.  "  A  negotiation 
entered  into  for  procuring  pecuniary  compensation  to  individuals,  involved 
no  positive  obligation  on  their  government  to  prosecute  it  to  extremities. 
A  solemn  treaty,  ratified  by  the  constitutional  organs  of  the  two  powers, 
changed  the  private  into  a  public  right.  The  government  acquires  by  it 
a  perfect  right  to  insist  on  its  stipulations.  All  doubts  as  to  their  justice 
seem  now  to  have  been  removed,  and  every  objection  to  the  payment  of 
a  debt  acknowledged  to  be  just,  will  be  severely  scrutinized  by  the 
impartial  world." 

In  his  message  of  January  15,  1836,  President  Jackson  again  adverts 
to  the  subject.  He  observes  :  "  It  will  be  seen  that  France  requires,  as 
a  condition  precedent  to  the  execution  of  a  treaty  unconditionally  ratified, 
and  to  the  payment  of  a  debt  acknowledged  by  all  the  branches  of  her 
government  to  be  due,  that  certain  explanations  shall  be  made,  of  which 
she  dictates  the  terms.  These  terms  are  such  as  that  government  has 
already  been  officially  informed  cannot  be  complied  with  ;  and,  if  per 
sisted  in,  they  must  be  considered  as  a  deliberate  refusal  on  the  part  of 
France  to  fulfil  engagements  binding  by  the  law  of  nations  and  h  :d 
sacred  by  the  whole  civilized  world."  He  submits  to  Congress  to  de 
termine  upon  the.  ulterior  measures  to  be  pursued.  "  It  is  time,"  he 
says,  "  that  legislative  action  should  be  brought  to  sustain  executive  ex 
ertion  in  such  measures  as  the  case  requires" — suggesting,  as  an  im 
mediate  step,  the  "  prohibiting  the  introduction  of  French  products  and 
the  entrv  of  French  vessels  into  our  ports,"  "  as  a  proper  preliminary 
step  to  stronger  measures,  should  their  adoption  be  rendered  necessary 
by  subsequent  events." 

The  subject  was  taken  under  consideration  by  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Relations  in  the  Senate,  which,  by  its  chairman,  Mr  Clay,  made 


43 

an  elaborate  report  on  the  case.  The  authority  of  this  gentleman  will 
doubtless  have  its  weight  with  a  certain  portion  of  the  people  of  this 
country  ;  and  it  will  be  found  that,  so  far  as  regards  the  original  duty  of 
the  government  to  press  to  a  satisfactory  result  the  claims  of  its  citizens 
for  injuries  sustained  by  them  by  the  aggressions  of  a  foreign  power,  the 
"perfect  obligation"  of  the  treaty  "  after  its  mutual  ratification,"  and  the 
right  to  insist  upon  the  fulfilment  of  its  stipulations,  this  report  fully 
sustains  the  views  and  opinions  of  the  President.  The  language  in  which 
Mr.  Clay  conveys  his  sentiments  on  these  topics  deserves  to  be  remem 
bered  and  weighed  by  those  who  are  so  much  disposed  to  create  an  im 
pression  that  our  own  government  can  scarcely  be  right,  or  a  foreign  one 
wrong,  in  the  conduct  of  their  relations. 

On  the  first  of  the  points  alluded  to,  after  characterizing  the  measures 
of  France  in  which  these, claims  had  their  origin,  as  having  "  prostrated 
the  clearest  principles  of  public  law,  and  violated  the  most  solemn  en 
gagements  consecrated  by  pledges  of  public  faith,"  he  says  :  "  whilst, 
however,  the  government  of  the  United  States  felt  itself  restrained,  by 
prudential  considerations,  to  abstain  from  an  appeal  to  arms  at  that  period 
against  France,"  which  he  had  shown  would  have  been  perfectly  justifi 
able  under  the  "  circumstances,"  it  resolved  never  to  acquiesce  in  the  in 
justice  which  citizens  of  the  United  States  had  experienced  at  the  hands 
of  France  ;  but  unremittingly  to  persevere  in  demanding  the  indemnity 
to  which  they  were  justly  entitled."  "  It  was  due  to  ancient  relations 
with  France,  to  the  interest  of  the  two  countries,  and  to  the  nature  01 
the  case,  since  the  injuries  were  not  resented  when  they  were  fresh,  that 
redress  should  be  first  sought  by  friendly  negotiations." 

On  the  last  topic  he  thus  expresses  himself:  "  The  President  justly 
remarks,  that  the  idea  of  acquiescing  in  the  refusal  of  the  execution  of 
the  treaty  will  not  for  a  moment  be  entertained  by  any  branch  of  the 
American  government.  The  United  States  ean  never  abandon  the  pur 
suit  of  claims  founded  on  the  most  aggravated  wrongs.  And  if,  contrary 
to  all  just  expectations,  France  should  persist  in  the  non-fulfilment  of 
the  treaty,  when  negotiations  shall  be  completely  exhausted,  it  will  then 
become  the  bounden  and  painful  duty  of  the  United  States  to  consider 
what  measures  are  called  for,  on  the  occasion,  by  their  honor,  th  ir  in 
terests,  and  the  justice  due  to  their  injured  citizens." 

The  only  material  point  on  which  the  committee  differed  in  opinion 
with  the  President,  was  upon  the  question  whether  the  period  had  arrived 
when  the  United  States  were  called  upon  to  take  into  their  own  hands 
the  redress  of  the  injuries  of  which  they  complained.  The  committee 
consider  that  the  good  faith  manifested  by  the  head  of  the  French  govern- 


44 

ment,  the  anxious  desire  which  it  avowed  faithfully  to  execute  the  treaty, 
the  circumstances  by  which  it  had  been  baffled  in  its  efforts,  and  the 
prospect  that  all  our  objects  were  likely  to  be  speedily  accomplished 
by  the  exercise  of  a  little  more  forbearance,  justify  them  in  coming  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  United  States  "  should  await  the  result  of  the 
renewed  exertions  of  the  French  King  and  his  cabinet  to  secure  the 
financial  means  to  execute  trie  treaty."  Whether  the  time  has  not 
arrived  for  this  government  to  make  a  final  and  peremptory  demand  of 
Mexico  to  fulfil  her  engagements,  is  now  the  question  which  the  Ex 
ecutive  must  decide. 


No.  IV. 

So  great  a  length  of  time  has  intervened  since  the  commencement  of 
our  controversies  with  Mexico,  that  the  origin  and  character  of  these 
difficulties  seem  almost  to  have  passed  into  oblivion.  Since  that  period, 
a  new  generation  has  come  upon  the  stage.  The  statesmen  who  then 
predominated  in  the  councils  of  the  nation,  no  longer  exercise  a  sway 
in  the  public  councils.  The  present  fills  the  largest  share  in  general 
estimation  ;  and  when  the  view  is  abstracted  or  diverted  from  it,  it  is 
rather  the  future  than  the  past  that  engrosses  our  attention.  In  addi 
tion  to  this,  it  cannot  be  disguised  that  the  tone  and  temper  of  political 
partisanship  exercises  a  powerful  influence  in  giving  a  color  and  a  direc 
tion  to  the  speculations  even  of  the  ablest  and  most  patriotic  of  the  con 
ductors  of  the  press,  in  the  discussions  even  of  questions  involving  the 
foreign  relations  of  the  country. 

Under  these  circumstances,  it  is  perhaps  not  to  be  wondered  at  that 
the  real  history  of  our  intercourse  with  Mexico  should  be  forgotten,  or 
the  real  merits  of  the  questions  which  have  arisen  between  the  two  na 
tions  should  be  misapprehended.  Ignorance,  notwithstanding  all  the 
facilities  for  obtaining  accurate  knowledge,  might  perhaps  be  excused  ; 
but  misrepresentation,  especially  when  calculated  to  cast  odium  upon 
our  own  country,  and  to  furnish  justification  for  the  conduct  of  a  foreign 
power,  admits  of  no  palliation.  When  the  facts  are  unknown,  or  have 
faded  from  the  memory,  silence  would  be  the  commendable  course  ;  but 
nothing  can  extenuate  the  entire  perversion  of  truth  which  has  been 
so  frequently  manifested  by  those  who  have  written  most  copiously,  and 
declaimed  most  loudly,  on  this  topic. 

One  of  the  most  lamentable  consequences  resulting  from  this  course 


45 

has  been,  that  a  very  large  and  intelligent  portion  of  the  American  peo 
ple  are  at  this  time  in  a  state  of  deplorable  ignorance  as  to  the  real  merits 
of  the  disputes  in  which  we  are  involved  with  a  foreign  power.  By 
many,  Mexico  has  been  regarded  as  occupying  too  unimportant  a  posi 
tion  among  nations  to  engross  much  of  their  attention.  No  sufficient 
motive  has  been  found  in  the  relative  position  and  strength  of  the  parties 
to  lead  to  the  supposition  that  she  would  wantonly,  and  without  pro 
vocation,  perpetrate  outrages  upon  her  powerful  neighbor,  or  justly 
incur  her  resentment.  The  events  which  have  transpired  from  time 
to  time  have  failed  to  attract  observation,  or  were  not  deemed  worthy 
of  remembrance ;  and  it  is  only  when  the  measure  of  the  annexation 
of  Texas  has  been  introduced  among  the  topics  of  our  domestic  strifes, 
and  employed  to  swell  the  notes  of  party  discord,  that  our  relations 
with  Mexico  have  attracted  any  considerable  share  of  public  at 
tention. 

It  is  not,  however,  under  such  circumstances,  that  questions  of  this 
kind  can  usually  be  viewed  with  that  calmness  and  deliberation,  that 
fairness  and  fullness,  which  can  alone  lead  to  just  conclusions  or  direct  the 
judgment  with  the  greatest  accuracy. 

We  know  not  to  what  else  than  the  foregoing  and  other  analogous 
causes,  can  be  attributed  the  egregious  misapprehensions  which  have 
existed,  and  do  exist  upon  this  subject ;  and  that  it  has  happened  that, 
with  all  the  lights  which  our  public  archives  shed  upon  it,  and  the  most 
incontrovertible  proofs  which  history  furnishes,  Mexico  has  been  held 
up  in  our  legislative  halls,  in  the  most  deliberately  prepared  public 
documents,  and  in  the  columns  of  many  of  our  leading  journals,  as  an  in 
nocent  and  unoffending  party — as  a  nation  which  has  conducted  herself, 
in  her  intercourse  with  foreign  nations,  with  more  than  Castilian  scrupu 
lousness — as  pure  in  her  administration  of  justice  towards  the  citizens 
and  subjects  of  other  governments — as  faithful  in  her  observance  of  trea- 
tie- — and  as  having  afforded  no  other  cause  or  motive  for  hostility,  on 
the  part  of  other  nations,  than  her  possession  of  rich  and  fertile  provin 
ces,  which  have  stimulated  their  cupidity,  and  mines  whose  wrealth  has 
excited  their  sordid  avarice.  On  the  more  immediate  subject  of  Texas, 
her  claims  to  that  country,  though  utterly  at  war  with  every  principle 
wh'ch  lies  at  the  foundation  of  our  own  institutions,  has  been  treated  as 
if  it  were  perfect  and  unquestionable  ;  her  course  of  policy  towards  it, 
as  warranted  by  public  law  and  the  principle  of  natural  justice,  and  her 
right  to  persist  in  waging  a  war  to  subject  it  to  her  sway,  as  admitting 
of  the  most  perfect  justification.  On  the  other  hand,  the  measures  pro 
posed  by  the  United  States,  in  her  efforts  to  produce  a  pacification  be- 


46 

tween  these  contending  parties,  and  more  recently  of  annexing  Texas 
to  our  own  Republic,  have  been,  in  the  same  quarters,  stigmatized  as  a 
piratical  robbery,  attempted  to  be  perpetrated  upon  an  unoffending 
neighbor  in  equal  violation  of  the  principles  of  public  law  and  the  most 
solemn  stipulations  of  treaties. 

To  those  who  have  investigated  this  subject  fairly  and  impartially, 
who  have  traced  the  entire  history  of  Mexico  since  she  threw  off  the 
Spanish  yoke,  it  would  be  a  matter  of  superogation  to  assert,  and  to  ad 
duce  testimony  to  support  the  assertion,  that  nothing  can  be  more 
essentially  and  fundamentally,  in  general  and  in  detail,  more  false  and 
groundless  than  the  allegations  to  which  we  have  adverted.  De  Toque- 
ville  has  remarked,  that  all  the  history  of  the  United  States  is  com 
prised  in  our  newspapers  j  and  it  is  certain,  and  we  congratulate  our 
country  upon  the  fact,  that,  with  a  free  and  independent  press,  with  no 
shackles  imposed  upon  the  expression  of  opinion,  and  with  such  a  me 
dium  of  communication  offered  to  every  man  who  is  disposed  to  trans 
mit  his  views  to  trie  sober  judgment  of  the  people,  an  opportunity  is 
always  open  to  enlighten  the  public  mind  upon  points  on  which  its 
judgment  must  eventually  decide.  Through  this  medium,  when  error 
has  been  committed,  it  may  be  rectified.  The  time  has  arrived  when 
this  public  opinion  should  be  disabused  upon  those  matters  vitally  af 
fecting  the  honor  of  the  nation — when  the  errors  which  have  been  so 
widely  disseminated  should  be  corrected.  Not  only  have  thousands  of 
our  countrymen  been  led  (most  unjustly,  as  we  think)  to  condemn  our 
government  for  its  conduct,  but  the  most  unjust  and  erroneous  ideas 
have  been  communicated  to  the  public  mind  of  Europe.  Representa 
tions  have  been  made,  wholly  unmerited,  that  the  character  of  our 
people  and  the  tendency  of  our  institutions  are  grasping  and  rapa 
cious. 

On  these  points  it  is  the  duty  of  every  American  to  contribute  his 
exertions  to  enlighten  the  public  judgment.  In  our  estimation,  the 
honor  and  integrity  of  our  government,  the  disposition  of  the  American 
people,  and  the  character  of  our  institutions,  have  been  all  and  equally 
dishonored  and  libelled  by  these  aspersions.  From  the  day  that  Mexico 
assumed  her  rank  as  an  independent  power,  her  conduct  towards  the 
United  States,  in  an  especial  manner,  has  been  marked  by  outrage,  and 
a  disregard  to  her  own  true  interests  and  the  rights  of  our  citizens. 
Through  all  the  successive  administrations  which  have  at  ^d  the  su 
premacy  in  her  councils,  each  has  vied  with  its  predecessor  in  the  num 
ber  and  atrocity  of  its  outrages.  At  first,  they  were  regarded  as  merely 
accidental  acts  of  "  irregular  and  unjust  proceedings  ;"  but  so  mild 


were  our  remonstrances,  so  conciliatory  cur  request  for  explanations, 
so  courteous  our  calls  for  redress,  that  they  were  passed  by  with  open 
neglect,  and  scarcely  suppressed  contempt.     Gradually  they  assumed 
the  frequency  of  a  confirmed  habit,  and  the  systematic  regularity  of  a 
well-arranged  policy.     The  reiterated  acts  of  personal  cruelty,  of  rapa 
cious  robbery,  and  of  every  modification  of  wrong,  drew  from  every 
American  functionary,  without  distinction  of  party,  the  most  indignant 
denunciations.     Demands  more  or  less  peremptory  were  made  for  re 
dress  ;  and  in  proportion  to  the  energy  with  which  our  remonstrances 
were  urged,  and  remuneration  demanded,  did  the  deportment  of  Mexico 
become   more  conciliatory  and  more  submissive.     These  vascillations 
apparently  exhausted  our  patience,  and  the  American  government  was 
compelled  distinctly  to  notify  that  of  Mexico,  that  unless  an  arrange 
ment  should  promptly  be  concluded,  no  alternative  was  left  but  to  take 
the  matter  into  our  own  hands,  and  to  exact  that  measure  of  justice 
which    the    case    demanded,  and  which    had    been   so    long  delayed. 
Nor  was  this  contemptuous  disregard  of  all  the  obligations  of  natural 
and  national  justice,  and  these  flagrant  violations  of  treaties,  confined 
to  the  United  States.     England  suffered  wrongs  and  indignities  of  a 
similar    character,  which,  however,  were  more    promptly  and  vigor 
ously  redressed.     France  received  like  demonstrations  of  Mexican  faith 
and  honor,  until  she  was  compelled  to  vindicate  her  rights  before  the 
castle  of  San  Juan  de  Ulloa,  to  exact  satisfaction  at  the  cannon's  mouth, 
and  to  enforce  submission   to  terms  dictated  by  her  admiral  from  the 
quarter-deck  of  his  ship. 

During  this  period,  the  deportment  of  the  United  States  exhibited  the 
most  marked  contrast  with  that  of  Mexico.  It  has  been  stated  (and, 
although  not  officially  promulgated  to  the  public,  yet  it  rests  upon  hio-h. 
authority)  that  France  and  England,  indignant  at  the  course  of  Mexico, 
proposed  to  our  government  to  combine  in  enforcing  upon  Mexico  a 
respect  for  the  law  of  nations,  and  an  observance  of  treaty  stipulations  j 
which  proposition  was  declined  by  the  American  administration.  Be 
this  as  it  may,  the  published  correspondence  shows  that  scarcely  a  word 
of  complaint  ever  escaped  a  Mexican  functionary  against  the  govern 
ment  or  people  of  the  United  States.  In  the  few  instances  which  did 
occur,  the  cases  were  promptly  met,  and  either  distinctly  disproved  or 
satisfactorily  explained. 

It  is  not  r  Jntention  to  leave  these  matters  of  such  grave  importance 
to  rest  upon  our  unsustained  assertions.  In  our  succeeding  numbers, 
we  shall  go  somewhat  into  detail,  and  fortify  what  has  been  said  by  the 
most  abundant  and  conclusive  proof,  drawn  from  the  most  authentic 
sources. 


48 


No.  V. 

WE  have  already  remarked  that  causes  of  complaint  and  sources  of 
difficulty  between  the  United  States  and  Mexico  were  coeval  with  the 
declaration  of  independence  by  the  latter  power.  A  brief  review  of  the 
history  of  that  nation  will  furnish  a  suitable  introduction  to  the  more 
detailed  and  specific  narrative  into  which  we  shall  be  led. 

During  the  tremendous  contest  in  the  Peninsula,  in  which  Spain  re 
sisted  the  efforts  made  by  Bonaparte  to  impose  a  member  of  his  own 
family  upon  the  Spanish  throne,  and  to  subjugate  that  ancient  and 
haughty  nation  to  the  imperial  sway,  the  most  liberal  aid  was  afforded  by 
the  American  provinces  to  the  mother  country.  It  has  been  estimated 
that  Mexico  alone  contributed,  within  the  brief  period  of  a  few  years, 
more  than  ninety  millions  of  dollars  to  aid  in  carrying  on  this  conflict.* 
On  the  restoration  of  peace,  however,  the  friends  of  liberty  found  cause 
to  lament  the  severe  disappointment  they  were  doomed  to  experience. 
All  the  glorious  hopes  in  which  they  had  indulged  were  defeated ;  all 
the  promises  which,  in  the  period  of  danger  and  of  trial  had  been  so 
liberally  made,  were  forgotten.  Despotism  resumed  all  her  authority, 
and  condemned  to  the  most  ignominious  punishments  those  who  had 
mainly  contributed  to  rescue  their  country  in  the  hour  of  peril.  The 
game  disappointments  contributed  to  rouse  into  a  flame  the  sparks  of 
discontent  throughout  the  American  colonies.  They  were  remitted  to 
the  tender  mercies  of  their  old  rulers — their  industry  repressed,  their 
commerce  interdicted,  and  the  ancient  colonial  policy  re-established  in 
all  its  pristine  vigor.  The  different  provinces,  hopeless  of  redress,  suc 
cessively  dissolved  their  connection  with  the  parent  country,  declared 
their  independence,  and  asserted  the  right  of  self-government.  With 
little  concert  among  themselves,  each  part  in  accordance  with  its  own 
view  of  policy  ;  and  among  others,  the  various  contiguous  provinces,  of 
which  Mexico  was  the  chief,  combined  in  the  effort  to  throw  off  the 
galling  yoke. 

The  causes  which  induced  this  movement,  the  principles  upon  which 
the  contest  was  to  be  waged,  and,  still  more,  the  character  of  the  politi 
cal  institutions  which  were  established,  attracted  the  sympathies  of  the 
friends  of  liberty  throughout  the  civilized  world.  The  close  proximity 
of  Mexico  to  the  United  States,  and  the  facilities  of  communication 
which  existed  between  the  two  countries,  gave  an  ardor  and  a  strength 
to  this  feeling  of  sympathy,  which  promised  the  most  auspicious  results. 

*  Napiefs  Peninsular  War. 


49 

When,  in  1824,  a  new  Constitution  was  formed,  so  striking  an  analogy 
existed  between  the  general  principles,  and  even  the  minute  details 
which  characterized  it,  and  those  which  distinguished  our  own  institu 
tions,  that  it  almost  seemed  as  if  every  line  of  distinction  and  wall  of 
separation  were  broken  down  and  obstructed.  The  people  of  the  United 
States  regarded  their  Mexican  neighbors  with  almost  fraternal  affection  ; 
exulted  in  their  successes ;  mourned  at  their  reverses,  and  hailed  with 
exultation  their  final  triumph,  and  the  consummation  of  their  struggle 
for  independence.  We  rejoiced  at  the  anticipation  that  these  new 
republics,  which  had  imitated  our  example  in  emancipating  themselves 
from  the  oppressive  yoke  of  colonial  dependence,  under  the  same  cir 
cumstances,  and  upon  the  same  grounds  which  had  governed  us — who 
had  laid,  in  their  frame  of  government,  the  same  broad  platform  of  indi 
vidual  rights  which  lay  at  the  foundation  of  our  institutions — would  be 
linked  with  us  in  bonds,  and  connected  with  us  by  ties  and  interests, 
more  durable  than  had  ever  before  subsisted  between  nations. 

So  vehement  were  the  feelings  thus  awakened,  that  all  the  energies  of 
the  Executive  were  demanded  to  keep  us  within  those  limits  which  our 
neutral  relations  imposed.  Nothing,  however,  could  restrain  the  demon 
strations  of  private  sympathy,  or  prevent  our  citizens  from  participating 
in  the  momentous  struggle.  Multitudes  flocked  to  the  new-raised 
standard  of  liberty,  from  the  United  States,  from  England,  Ireland, 
France,  and  Italy,  many  of  whom  distinguished  themselves  in  the  service, 
both  by  sea  and  land.*  Mexico  opened  her  arms  wide  to  receive  all 
who  would  come  to  her  from  any  part  of  the  world,  "f  In  this  posture 
of  her  affairs,  she  offered  every  inducement  to  the  emigration,  and  every 
facility  to  the  naturalization,  of  foreigners.  Perhaps  no  nation  has  ever 
adopted  a  more  liberal  policy  than  Mexico  promulgated  upon  this  subject. 
By  a  law  passed  in  1823,  it  was  provided  that  "  all  foreigners  who  come 
to  establish  themselves  within  the  empire  shall  be  considered  as  natu 
ralized,  should  they  exercise  any  useful  profession  or  industry,  by  which, 
at  the  end  of  three  years,  they  have  a  capital  to  support  themselves, 
and  are  married.  Those  who,  with  the  foregoing  qualifications,  marry 
Mexicans,  will  acquire  particular  merit  for  the  obtaining  letters  of  citi 
zenship."  By  another  law,  all  the  instruments  of  husbandry,  machinery, 
and  other  utensils,  that  are  introduced  by  the  colonists  for  their  use,  are 
allowed  to  be  imported  free  of  duty,  "  as  also  merchandise  introduced  by 
each  family,  to  the  extent  of  two  thousand  dollars." 

Stimulated  by  all  these  circumstances,  large  numbers  of  foreigners, 
particularly  citizens  of  the  United  States,  emigrated  to  this  inviting  coun- 

*  Mr.  Webster  to  Mr.  Thompson,  July  8, 1842.  f  Ibid. 

4 


50 

try.  They  established  themselves  in  every  part  of  the  dominions  of  the 
Republic,  and  occupied  themselves  in  every  department  of  industry.  As 
merchants  along  the  seaboard  and  in  the  cities,  as  agriculturists  and 
manufacturers,  they  introduced,  with  no  small  amount  of  capital,  skill, 
industry,  habits  of  business,  and  skill  in  all  these  various  avocations. 
Prosperity  began  to  exhibit  itself  in  every  direction  ;  commerce,  liber 
ated  from  the  restraints  which  had  fettered  its  movements,  began  to 
expand,  and  the  immense  resources  of  the  country  were  in  a  rapid  state 
of  progressive  development.  The  trade  with  the  United  States  rose  to 
upward  of  nine  millions  of  dollars  annually,  and  largely  contributed  to 
the  wealth  and  comfort  of  both  nations. 

This  prosperous  and  happy  aspect  of  affairs  speedily  underwent  a 
change.  The  bulk  of  the  people  of  Mexico,  trained  under  the  debasing 
influences  of  a  narrow  and  rigid  despotism,  imperfectly  comprehended, 
and  were  wholly  unable  properly  to  appreciate,  the  fundamental  prin 
ciple  of  free  government.  Bigoted,  and  ruled  by  an  ignorant  yet  crafty 
priesthood,  they  were  taught  to  regard  everything  approaching  to  reli 
gious  toleration  with  antipathy  and  abhorrence.  Accustomed  to  habits 
of  indolence,  and  averse  to  either  bodily  or  mental  labor,  they  were  little 
qualified  to  compete  with  the  .more  energetic  and  enterprising  strangers 
who  had  mingled  among  them.  The  characters  of  their  rulers  were 
little  calculated  to  inspire  respect ;  and  without  any  well-established 
principles  of  morality,  wholly  destitute  of  loyalty  to  law,  disorder  and 
anarchy  everywhere  appeared  and  triumphed. 

The  combined  operation  of  these  causes  soon  began  to  manifest  itself 
in  the  bitter  hostility  which  was  engendered  towards  the  foreigners  who 
had  accepted  their  hospitable  invitations,  and  confided  in  their  assurances 
of  protection  and  encouragement.  The  wealth  which  was  gradually  but 
rapidly  accumulating  under  the  productive  efforts  of  exotic  enterprise 
and  industry,  roused  their  jealousy  and  stimulated  their  cupidity.  En 
veloped  in  the  gloomiest  shades  of  ignorance,  they  abhorred  the  intel 
lectual  light  which  began  to  shine  among  them,  and  to  make  their  "  dark 
ness  visible."  They  were  unable  to  perceive  or  to  appreciate  the  public 
'  benefits  which  were  to  result  from  private  prosperity  and  the  accumu 
lation  of  individual  wealth.  The  government  was  in  the  hands  of  men 
who  obtained  power  by  the  most  nefarious  means,  and  employed  it  to 
the  most  iniquitous  purposes.  Holding  their  authority  by  the  most  pre 
carious  tenure,  and  wholly  unscrupulous  in  the  exercise  of  it,  they  were 
under  a  sort  of  necessity  to  connive  at  the  mal-administration  of  their 
nominal  subordinates  and  dependants,  and  to  close  their  eyes  and  ears 
to  all  the  complaints  of  abuse  of  power  and  venal  administration  of  jus 
tice.  They  opened  a  new  career  of  cruelty  and  injustice.  Beginning 


51 

with  a  few  and  remote  instances  of  aggression  and  outrage,  impunity  in 
crime  only  encouraged  them  to  adopt  a  more  comprehensive  and 
systematic  plan  of  iniquity.  American  citizens  were  plundered,  impris 
oned,  and  murdered,  without  awakening  sympathy  or  meeting  with 
punishment. 

The  government  of  the  United  States,  meanwhile,  listened  to  the  recital 
of  the  outrages  which  from  time  to  time  reached  them,  if  not  with  real 
incredulity,  at  least  with  apparent  apathy  ;  sought  apologies  for  miscon 
duct  when  the  facts  could  no  longer  be  denied,  in  the  disorganization  of 
public  affairs,  and  the  lawlessness  of  individuals  amid  the  embarrass 
ments  of  political  revolutions.  They  were  unwilling  to  censure  in  too 
harsh  terms  the  irregularities,  as  they  were  mildly  called,  which  were 
charitably  attributed  to  inexperience  in  the  administration  of  govern 
ment,  and  they  forbore  to  exact  immediate  and  ample  reparation  for 
wrongs,  the  existence  of  which  could  no  longer  be  denied. 

This  course  of  policy,  and  the  consequences  to  which  it  led,  will  be 
more  fully  developed  in  our  succeeding  number. 


No.  VI. 

IN  the  prosecution  of  the  suggestion  with  which  our  last  number 
closed,  it  will  perhaps  be  found  most  expedient  and  convenient  to  place 
in  juxtaposition  some  of  the  passages,  in  which  our  most  distinguished 
public  functionaries  have  exhibited  their  views  of  the  general  conduct 
of  Mexico  in  her  relations  with  the  United  States,  and  then  to  produce, 
somewhat  in  detail,  the  facts  and  circumstances  upon  which  those  opi 
nions  were  formed.  In  both  of  these  branches  of  discussion,  we  feel 
ourselves  encumbered  with  the  mass  of  material  which  lies  before 
us  ;  and  being  driven  to  make  a  selection  from  the  cumbrous  heap, 
we  shall  necessarily  be  forced  to  leave  half  the  story  of  our  wrongs 
untold. 

Although  not  the  first  in  time,  yet,  from  its  comprehensive  summary 
of  the  facts  which  had  preceded  and  occasioned  it,  we  shall  commence 
our  selection  with  the  special  message  from  President  Jackson  to  Con 
gress  on  the  6th  February,  1837, 24th  Congress,  2d  session,  House  Docu 
ment,  No.  139.  In  this  paper,  the  President  informs  Congress  that  he 
had  been  disappointed  in  the  hope  he  had  entertained  of  bringing  our 
claims  upon  Mexico  to  an  amicable  adjustment  by  the  exercise  of  great 
forbearance.  He  then  proceeds  :  "  Having  in  vain  urged  upon  that  gov- 


52 

eminent  the  justice  of  those  claims,  and  my  indisputable  obligation  to 
insist  that  there  should  be  no  further  delay  in  the  acknowledgment,  if 
not  in  the  redress,  of  the  injuries  complained  of,  my  duty  requires  that 
the  whole  subject  should  be  presented,  as  it  now  is,  for  the  action  of 
Congress,  whose  exclusive  right  it  is  to  decide  on  the  further  measures 
of  redress  to  be  employed.  The  length  of  time  since  some  of  the  inju 
ries  have  been  committed — the  repeated  and  unavailing  applications  for 
redress — the  wanton  character  of  some  of  the  outrages  upon  the  property 
and  persons  of  our  citizens — upon  the  officers  and  flag  of  the  United 
States — independent  of  recent  insults  to  this  government  and  people  by 
the  late  extraordinary  Mexican  minister,  would  justify,  in  the  eyes  of 
nations,  immediate  war.  That  remedy,  however,  should  not  be  used  by 
just  and  generous  nations,  confiding  in  their  strength,  for  injuries  com 
mitted,  if  it  can  be  honorably  avoided ;  and  it  has  occurred  to  me,  that, 
considering  the  present  embarrassed  condition  of  that  country,  we  should 
act  with  both  wisdom  and  moderation,  by  giving  Mexico  one  more  op 
portunity  to  atone  for  the  past  before  we  take  redress  into  our  own 
hands.  To  avoid  all  misconception  on  the  part  of  Mexico,  as  well  as  to 
protect  our  own  national  character  from  reproach,  this  opportunity  should 
be  given  with  the  avowed  design  and  full  preparation  to  take  immediate 
satisfaction,  if  it  should  not  be  obtained  on  a  repetition  of  the  demand 
for  it." 

President  Van  Buren,  in  his  message  of  December  5,  1837,  thus  ad 
verts  again  to  the  subject :  "  The  aggravating  circumstances  connected 
with  our  claims  upon  Mexico,  and  a  variety  of  events  touching  the  honor 
and  integrity  of  our  government,  led  my  predecessor  to  make,  at  the 
second  session  of  the  last  Congress,  a  special  recommendation  of  the 
course  to  be  pursued  to  obtain  a  speedy  and  final  satisfaction  of  the 
injuries  complained  of  by  this  government  and  by  our  citizens.  He 
recommended  a  final  demand  of  redress,  with  a  competent  authority  to 
the  Executive  to  make  reprisals,  if  that  demand  should  be  made  in  vain. 
From  the  proceedings  of  Congress  on  that  recommendation,  it  appeared 
that  the  opinions  of  both  Houses  of  the  Legislature  coincided  with  that 
of  the  Executive,  that  any  mode  of  redress  known  to  the  law  of  nations 
might  justifiably  be  used.'1 

After  stating  what  had  occurred  in  the  interim,  he  observes  :  "  I  re 
gret,  therefore,  the  more  deeply  to  have  found,  in  the  recent  communi 
cations  of  that  government,  so  little  reason  to  hope  that  any  future 
efforts  of  mine  for  the  accomplishment  of  those  desirable  objects,  would 
be  successful.  Although  the  larger  number,  and  many  of  them  aggra 
vated  cases  of  personal  wrongs,  have  been  now  for  years  before  the 
Mexican  government,  and  some  of  the  causes  of  national  complaint,  and 


53 

those  of  the  most  offensive  character,  admitted  of  immediate,  simple, 
and  satisfactory  replies,  it  is  only  within  a  few  days  past  that  any  specific 
communication  in  answer  to  our  last  demand,  made  five  months  ago, 
has  been  received  from  the  Mexican  minister.  By  the  report  of  the 
Secretary  of  State,  herewith  presented,  and  the  accompanying  docu 
ments,  it  will  be  seen,  that  for  not  one  of  our  public  complaints  has  satis 
faction  been  given  or  offered  ;  that  but  one  of  the  cases  of  personal 
wrong  has  been  favorably  considered  ;  and  that  but  four  cases  of  both 
descriptions,  out  of  all  those  formally  presented  and  earnestly  pressed, 
have,  as  yet,  been  decided  upon  by  the  Mexican  government."  In  con 
cluding  his  remarks  upon  the  subject,  Mr.  Van  Buren,  after  drawing  the 
attention  of  Congress  to  the  demand  which,  under  its  sanction,  had  been 
made,  and  referring  to  the  documents  communicated  to  show  with  what 
little  success,  says  :  "  On  a  careful  and  deliberate  examination  of  their 
contents,  and  considering  the  spirit  manifested  by  the  Mexican  govern 
ment,  it  has  become  my  painful  duty  to  return  the  subject  as  it  now 
stands  to  Congress,  to  whom  it  belongs  to  decide  upon  the  time,  the 
mode,  and  the  measure  of  redress."* 

The  report  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  accompanying  this  message,  fur 
nishes  a  more  detailed  narrative  of  the  progress  and  state  of  the  contro 
versies  between  the  two  governments.  The  summary  which  he  gives 
in  the  concluding  part  of  this  paper  is  sufficiently  condensed  and  impres 
sive  to  require  a  full  quotation.  "  The  relations  of  the  United  States 
and  Mexico,  as  they  now  stand,  are  these  :  The  demand  of  the  United 
States  for  justice  for  past  injuries  has  been  made  in  conformity  with  the 
treaty  between  the  two  nations  ;  but  apparently  no  public  complaint  has 
been  examined  by  the  Mexican  government,  except  the  conduct  of  Mr. 
Gorostiza.  The  printing  and  distribution  of  his  offensive  pamphlet  is 
approved  by  his  government,  as  comfortable  to  what  was  required  by  its 
dignity  and  interests. 

"  To  the  other  demands  of  a  public  nature,  which  existed  at  the  ad 
journment  of  the  last  annual  session  of  Congress,  after  five  months' 
delay,  no  answer  has  been  given.  On  three  cases  of  private  claims,  pre 
sented  for  final  answer,  answers  have  been  given.  The  justice  of  two 
of  them  is  denied,  although  one  of  them  rests  on  a  decree  of  the  Mexi 
can  government.  Satisfaction  for  the  one  admitted  to  be  just,  is  not 
made.  The  Congress  of  Mexico,  who  have  been  considering  the  sub 
ject  for  eight  or  ten  years,  will  be  invited  to  pass  upon  it  when  they 
meet.  Since  the  last  session  of  Congress,  an  embargo  has  been  laid  on 
American  vessels  in  the  ports  of  Mexico  ;  although  raised,  no  satisfac 
tion  has  been  made  or  offered  for  the  resulting  injuries.  Our  merchant 


25th  Congress,  2d  session,  House  Doc.  3. 


54 

vessels  have  been  captured  for  disregarding  a  pretended  blockade  of 
Texas  ;  vessels,  and  cargoes,  secretly  proceeded  against  in  the  Mexican 
tribunals,  condemned  and  sold.  The  captains,  crews,  and  passengers  of 
the  captured  vessels,  have  been  imprisoned  and  plundered  of  their  pro 
perty  ;  and  after  enduring  insults  and  injuries  have  been  released  with 
out  remuneration  or  apology.  For  these  acts  no  reparation  has  been 
promised,  or  explanations  given,  although  satisfaction  was,  in  general 
terms,  demanded  in  July  last.  From  these  facts,  a  judgment  may  be 
formed  of  the  value  of  the  assurances  that  have  been  received  from  the 
Mexican  government,  and  the  probability  of  their  being  ever  fulfilled." 
How  far  Mr.  Forsyth's  anticipations  were  justified  by  previous  events, 
and  to  what  extent  they  were  verified  by  subsequent  circumstances,  will 
hereafter  appear. 


No.  VII. 

THE  messages  of  Presidents  Jackson  and  Van  Buren,  with  the  mass 
of  documents  upon  which  their  views  were  formed,  were  referred  to  the 
Committees  of  Foreign  Relations  of  both  Houses,  and  received  from  them 
full  consideration.  A  copious  abstract  of  some  of  the  reports  of  these 
committees  will  show  in  what  light  the  legislative  department  of  the 
government  regarded  this  subject. 

On  the  19th  of  February,  1837,  Mr.  Buchanan,  from  the  Senate 
Committee,  submitted  a  report  in  which  it  is,  among  other  things, 


"  From  the  tlocuments  submitted  to  the  Committee,  it  appears  that, 
ever  since  the  revolution  of  1822,  which  separated  Mexico  from  Spain, 
and  even  for  some  years  before,  the  United  States  have  had  repeated 
causes  of  just  complaint  against  the  Mexican  authorities.  From  time 
to  time,  as  these  insults  and  injuries  have  occurred,  demands  for  satis 
faction  and  redress  have  been  made  by  our  successive  public  ministers 
at  the  city  of  Mexico,  but  almost  all  these  demands  have  hitherto 
proved  unavailing." 

*  *  ***** 

"  It  might  have  been  expected  that,  after  the  date  of  the  treaty  of 
amity,  commerce,  and  navigation  concluded  between  the  two  Republics 
on  the  5th  April,  1831,  these  causes  of  complaint  would  have  ceased 
to  exist.  That  treaty  so  clearly  defines  the  rights  and  duties  of  the 
repsective  parties,  that  it  seemed  almost  impossible  to  misunderstand  or 
to  mistake  them.  The  committee,  notwithstanding,  regret  to  be  com- 


55 

pelled  to  state  that  all  the  causes  of  complaint  against  Mexico,  which 
have  been  specially  noticed  in  the  correspondence  referred  to  them,  have 
occurred  since  the  conclusion  of  this  treaty." 

"  If  the  government  of  the  United  States  were  to  exact  strict  and 
prompt  redress  from  Mexico,  your  committee  might,  with  justice, 
recommend  an  immediate  resort  to  war  or  reprisals."  The  committee 
then  gives  its  "  hearty  assent  to  the  sentiments  contained  in  the  Mes 
sage  of  the  President,"  and  "  suggests  the  propriety  of  pursuing  the 
form  required  by  the  34th  article  of  the  treaty  with  Mexico,  in  all  the 
cases  to  which  it  may  be  applicable.  This  article  provides  that  i  if  (what 
indeed  cannot  be  expected)  any  of  the  articles  contained  in  the  present 
treaty  shall  be  violated  or  infracted  in  any  manner  whatever,  it  is  stipu 
lated  that  neither  of  the  parties  will  order  or  authorize  any  acts  of 
reprisal,  or  declare  war  against  the  other,  on  complaint  of  injuries  or 
damages,  until  the  said  party  considering  itself  offended,  shall  have  first 
presented  to  the  other  a  statement  of  such  injuries  or  damages,  verified 
by  competent  proofs,  and  demanded  justice  and  satisfaction,  and  the 
same  shall  have  been  either  refused  or  unreasonably  delayed.'  After 
such  a  demand,  should  prompt  justice  be  refused  by  the  Mexican  gov 
ernment,  we  may  appeal  to  all  nations,  not  only  for  the  equity  and 
moderation  with  which  we  have  acted  towards  a  sister  Republic,  but 
for  the  necessity  which  will  then  compel  us  to  seek  redress  for  our 
wrongs,  either  by  actual  war  or  by  reprisals." 

On  the  24th  February,  1837,  Mr.  Howard,  from  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Relations  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  submitted  a  report 
on  the  same  subject.  It  says,  that  "  The  history  of  the  relations  be 
tween  the  United  States  and  Mexico  exhibits  an  unbroken  succession 
of  good  feelings,  and  as  far  as  the  occasion  permitted,  of  kind  offices  on 
the  part  of  the  American  government  following  out  in  this,  as  in  other 
respects,  the  disposition  and  wishes  of  the  people.  The  first  to  recog 
nize  Mexico  as  an  independent  power,  the  government  of  the  United 
States  has  been  among  the  first  in  the  unceasing  manifestation  of  friend 
ship  to  this  adjacent  rJorth  American  government. 

"  At  an  early  period  of  her  struggle  for  independence,  the  ports  of  the 
United  States  were  open  to  her  flag,  even  at  the  hazard  of  incurring 
responsibility  for  this  act  of  impartial  neutrality.  But  the  committee 
perceive  with  profound  regret,  that,  on  the  part  of  Mexico,  there  has 
been  a  long  train  of  injuries  to  the  American  citizens  and  insults  to  the 
national  flag,  for  which  redress,  though  often  promised,  has  seldom  been 
obtained.  This  omission  has  doubtless  proceeded,  in  a  great  measure, 
from  the  unsettled  condition  of  the  Mexican  government,  the  numerous 
and  radical  changes  which  have  prevented  a  fixed  policy  from  being 


56 

pursued  in  its  foreign  affairs.  But  the  committee  believe  that  it  has 
also  sprung,  in  part,  from  a  knowledge  of  the  form  of  our  government, 
and  the  limited  power  of  its  executive  branch." 

After  corroborating  this  conclusion  by  referring  to  cases  in  which 
other  powers  under  whose  institutions  the  Executive  could  more 
promptly  and  efficiently  assert  the  national  honor  and  rights,  had  been 
more  successful  in  obtaining  redress  for  the  injuries  which  they  had 
sustained ;  and  that  in  our  own  case,  when  reparation  for  an  insult  was 
required  by  the  commander  of  a  naval  force,  assurance  was  given  that 
the  Mexican  functionary  who  had  perpetrated  the  outrage,  had  been 
removed  from  his  post,  and  promises  made  that  the  subject  should  be 
investigated  and  the  culpable  parties  punished,  yet  as  soon  as  the  squad 
ron  had  departed  from  the  Mexican  shores,  the  displaced  officer  was 
recalled  into  service,  and  assigned  to  another  command  "  where  his  hos 
tile  feelings  might  again  endanger  the  security  of  American  citizens  or 
property." 

In  a  subsequent  part  of  this  report,  the  committee  show  that  this 
reasonable  anticipation  was  speedily  realized,  by  the  arrest  and  impris 
onment  of  eight  seamen  attached  to  one  of  our  public  vessels  ;  the  pre 
vention  of  the  American  Consul  from  visiting  them  whilst  sick  and  in 
prison,  which  is  denounced  as  an  act  of  unpardonable  inhumanity  ; 
which  proceedings,  say  the  committee,  "  appear  to  have  proceeded  from 
the  same  officer  whose  fictitious  punishment,  but  real  promotion,  had 
been  offered  as  an  atonement  for  a  previous  insult  to  the  American 
flag." 

"  Looking,"  say  the  committee,  in  continuation,  "through  the  cata 
logue  of  complaints  which  the  United  States  have  to  make  against 
Mexico  on  their  own  account,  as  the  party  whose  dignity  and  honor  are 
assailed,  the  committee  are  unable  to  perceive  any  proof  of  a  desire  on 
the  part  of  the  Mexican  government  to  repair  injury  or  satisfy  honor. 
The  merchant  vessels  of  the  United  States  have  been  fired  into,  her 
citizens  attacked,  and  even  put  to  death,  and  her  ships  of  war  treated 
with  disrespect,  when  paying  a  friendly  visit  to  a  port  where  they  had  a 
right  to  expect  hospitality."  In  concluding  the  report,  the  committee 
observe,  that  "  they  fully  concur  with  the  President,  that  ample  cause 
exists  for  taking  redress  into  our  own  hands,  and  believe  we  should  be 
justified  in  the  opinion  of  other  nations  for  taking  such  a  step.  But 
they  are  willing  to  try  the  experiment  of  another  demand,  made  in  the 
most  solemn  form,  upon  the  justice  of  the  Mexican  government,  before 
any  further  proceedings  are  adopted.  It  is  their  opinion,  that  a  diplo 
matic  functionary  of  the  highest  grade  should  be  appointed  to  bear  this 
last  appeal,  whose  rank  would  indicate  at  once  the  importance  of  hw 


57 

mission  and  the  respect  in  which  the  government  to  which  he  is  accred 
ited  is  held." 

We  have  shown  in  a  preceding  number,  that  the  Executive  acted 
upon  the  recommendation  of  Congress  in  making  another  effort  to  induce 
Mexico  to  recognise  the  obligations  of  justice  and  of  treaty  stipulations, 
and  that  this  experiment  proved  fruitless  and  unavailing.  The  subject 
again  came  under  the  consideration  of  Congress  at  the  instance  of  the 
Executive,  and  on  the  7th  July,  1838,  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Rela 
tions  again  submitted  their  views  in  the  shape  of  a  report.  After  reca 
pitulating,  in  a  brief  but  distinct  narrative,  the  circumstances  of  the  case 
up  to  the  termination  of  the  preceding  Congress,  the  committee  proceed 
"  to  review  briefly  what  has  since  occurred."  Reference  is  made  to 
the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  already  cited,  for  the  mode  ki 
which  this  demand  was  made,  and  the  facts  which  attended  and  followed 
it.  A  more  extraordinary  developement  of  insincerity  and  bad  faith,  of 
prevarication  and  duplicity,  was,  perhaps,  never  exhibited.  Insults  and 
injuries  continue  to  occur ;  reparation  is  delayed  under  the  most  frivo 
lous  pretexts ;  the  Mexican  Executive  is  shown  to  give  statements  to 
its  own  Congress  different  from,  and  wholly  irreconcilable  with  those 
made  to  our  government,  and  its  whole  conduct  is  demonstrated  to  be 
marked  by  characteristics  which,  in  private  society,  would  debar  the 
guilty  party  from  farther  connection  with  men  of  probity  and  honor. 

Mr.  Gushing,  a  member  of  the  committee,  made  a  minority  report, 
which  dissents,  in  some  respects,  from  the  majority.  He,  however, 
*'  concurs  in  the  opinion  that  the  Mexican  government,  by  a  series  of 
acts,  part  aggressive  on  the  rights  of  individual  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  and  part  immediately  affecting  the  national  dignity  and  honor, 
and  by  delay  to  make  reparation  in  the  premises,  has  given  to  the  United 
States  cause  of  resort  to  measures  of  public  remedy,  if  other  circum 
stances  did  not  render  such  a  course  at  present  impolitic  and  unjust  on 
the  part  of  this  government."  Mr.  Gushing  perceived,  in  "the  pro 
longed  war  of  independence,"  and  "  in  the  civil  anarchy  which  accom 
panied  and  followed  that  war,"  a  palliation  of  the  irregularities  which 
have  marked  the  foreign  relations  and  diplomatic  intercourse  of  that  Re 
public.  He  perceived  a  further  palliation  u  in  events  connected  with 
the  establishment  of  the  independence  of  Texas."  Mr.  Gushing  deems 
this,  however,  "  no  sufficient  answer  to  the  causes  of  complaint  alleged 
by  the  United  States,"  and  the  reasons  he  assigns  for  this  opinion  are 
peculiarly  pertinent  to  the  questions  now  in  agitation  between  the  two 
countries.  The  grounds  taken  are  these  :  "  because  some  of  the  inju 
ries  sustained  by  us  date  back  anterior  to  the  commencement  of  the  civil 
war  in  Texas,  and  others  of  a  later  date  are  wholly  independent  of  that 


58 

fact ;  and  because,  whatever  reason  the  Mexican  Republic  may  have  to 
take  umbrage  at  the  conduct  of  the  citizens  or  the  government  of  the 
United  States,  in  reference  to  that  or  any  other  matter,  it  surely  behooves 
her  to  seek  redress  through  negotiation,  or  other  direct  ways,  sanctioned 
in  the  usage  of  nations,  rather  than  by  occasional  acts  of  public  or  pri 
vate  resentment." 

These  views  are  well  deserving  of  a  more  enlarged  discussion,  have 
a  powerful  bearing  upon  the  questions  now  in  controversy  between  the 
two  nations,  and  involve  some  of  the  most  important  questions  in  public 
and  international  law.  Being  at  present  limited  to  a  simple  narrative 
of  the  events  which  have  transpired,  and  the  views  taken  by  those 
clothed  with  public  authority,  the  discussion  of  these  topics  must  unavoid 
ably  be  deferred,  and  this  number  of  our  series  shall  conclude  with  the 
final  paragraph  of  Mr.  Cushing's  minority  report : 

"  The  undersigned  at  the  same  time  declares  that  if,  however  the 
reverse  shall  hereafter  appear,  and  it  shall  prove  (contrary  to  his  expec 
tations)  that  the  Mexican  government,  not  content  with  having  persisted 
in  so  many  acts  injurious  to  the  United  States,  has  added  thereto  the 
aggravation  of  procrastinating  redress  by  insincere  and  perfidious  pre 
tences  of  accommodation,  he  shall  consider  it  the  right  of  the  federal 
government  to  pursue,  in  that  event,  the  most  prompt  and  decided 
measures  for  amply  vindicating  the  interest  and  honor  of  the  United 
States." 


VIII. 

THE  energetic  movements  of  the  Executive,  and  the  decided  language 
of  the  two  branches  of  the  legislative  department  of  the  government, 
were  calculated  to  rouse  Mexico  from  her  apathy,  and  produced  a  brief 
impression  upon  that  government.  She  despatched  a  minister  to  the 
United  States,  disavowed  the  offensive  conduct  of  her  representative  at 
Washington  ;  and  negotiations  were  resumed  for  the  purpose  of  adjusting 
the  matter  in  controversy  between  the  two  powers. 

On  the  arrival  of  Mr.  Martinez  (the  new  envoy)  in  Washington,  com 
munications  were  opened  between  him  and  Mr.  Forsyth,  and  the  pro 
ceedings  will  be  found  at  length  in  25th  Con.  3d  sess.  House  doc.  No.  252. 
On  the  29th  August,  1838,  Mr.  Martinez  presented  to  Mr.  Forsyth  an 
"informal  memorandum,"  containing  a  projet  for  the  contemplated 
arrangement,  consisting  of  eight  articles.  Of  these,  only  one  related  to 
claims  which  "  Mexico  has  brought,  or  may  bring,  against  the  United 


59 

States,"  proposing  the  submission  of  them  to  the  decision  of  the  com 
missioners  to  whom  the  American  claims  were  to  be  referred  for  adjudica 
tion.  This  allusion  to  the  claims  of  Mexico  upon  the  United  States,  it 
will  be  perceived  by  reference  to  the  document  cited,  was  couched  in 
the  most  general  terms,  and  was  unaccompanied  by  any  specification  of 
their  nature,  character,  or  extent.  In  the  "  informal  memorandum  pre 
sented  in  reply  by  Mr.  Forsyth"  on  the  31st  August,  the  Secretary  of 
State  says :  "  We  are  not  apprised  of  the  existence  of  any  claims  of 
Mexico  upon  the  United  States." 

It  is  further  to  be  remarked  that,  through  the  whole  course  of  the 
correspondence  between  the  representatives  of  the  two  governments,  in 
the  arrangement  which,  so  far  as  regards  the  pecuniary  claims  of  Ameri 
can  citizens  upon  Mexico,  was  agreed  upon  as  early  as  the  3d  September; 
and  in  the  convention  itself  which  was  signed  by  the  respective  parties 
on  the  10th  of  September,  not  the  slightest  allusion  is  again  made  to  any 
causes  of  complaint  on  the  part  of  either  the  government  or  the  citizens 
of  Mexico  against  the  government  or  citizens  of  the  United  States. 
This  is  a  most  pregnant  circumstance.  It  cannot  admit  of  question  that, 
if  such  causes  of  complaint  existed,  they  would  have  been  urged  with  all 
the  strength  which  could  be  given  to  them  at  such  a  period ;  and  it  is 
calculated  to  awaken  surprise,  if,  when  Mexico  was  thus  reluctantly 
yielding  to  the  imperative  demands  upon  her  to  make  provision  for  the 
adjustment  of  the  claims  existing  against  her — when  these  claims  of  the 
American  government  for  matters  involving  national  honor  were  especi 
ally  excluded  from  this  arrangement,  and  reserved  for  future  and  diplo 
matic  settlement — that  she  never  breathed  a  whisper  with  regard  to  any 
counter  claims,  of  the  existence  of  which  she  had  been  apprised  that 
we  were,  up  to  that  moment,  utterly  ignorant,  and  which,  therefore,  if 
she  supposed  such  to  exist,  it  was  her  business,  as  well  as  interest,  to 
state  fully  and  distinctly. 

The  date  of  this  correspondence  and  convention — August  and  Sep 
tember,  1838 — are  important  circumstances  in  the  historical  narrative  in 
which  we  are  at  present  employed.  Up  to  this  period  the  United  States 
was  wholly  ignorant  of  any  pretension  of  claim  by  Mexico  for  national 
wrongs  or  insults  ;  and  although  invited  by  this  declaration  to  announce 
them,  they  were  significantly  silent.  It  is  not  merely  the  poet,  but  the 
lawyer  and  the  statesman,  who  tell  us  there  is  a  "silence  that  speaks." 
The  convention  which  recognised  the  existence  of  claims  of  citizens  of 
the  United  States  upon  the  government  of  Mexico  was  signed  on  the 
10th  day  of  September,  1S38  ;  and  by  the  12th  article  it  was  provided 
that  the  ratification  should  "  be  exchanged  at  Washington  within  five 
months  from  the  signature,  or  sooner,  if  possible."  It  was  duly  ratified, 


60 

with  the  sanction  of  the  Senate,  by  the  Executive  of  the  United  States, 
and  this  fact  communicated  to  the  Mexican  authorities.  The  American 
Secretary  of  State  was  informed,  by  the  Mexican  minister  who  conducted 
the  negotiation,  that  he  believed  the  President  of  the  Mexican  Republic 
"  had  full  power  to  ratify  the  instrument  without  a  reference  of  it  to  the 
Legislature."*  Every  facility  had  been  afforded  by  the  authorities  of  the 
United  States  to  transmit  this  convention  to  Mexico,  as  appears  by  the 
letter  of  acknowledgement  of  these  kind  offices  by  Mr.  Martinez,  in  his 
letter  of  September  26,  1838  ;  and,  in  consequence  of  these  aids,  it 
arrived  in  Mexico  in  due  time ;  our  representative  was  assured  that  it 
would  be  laid  before  the  new  Congress  for  its  ratification. f  But,  after 
requesting  again  the  assistance  of  an  American  man-of-war,  to  convey 
the  ratification  to  the  United  States,  the  Mexican  Secretary,  in  reply  to 
an  offer  to  furnish  him  with  the  facility  he  requested,  informed  the 
American  consul  that  "  a  difficulty  had  presented  itself  against  the 
ratification,  namely :  that  the  King  of  Prussia  had  refused  to  act  as 
umpire  in  the  differences  that  might  be  referred  to  him,  growing  out  of 
the  convention."  It  is  manifest  that,  had  such  been  the  fact,  it  furnished 
not  the  slightest  or  least  plausible  pretence  for  the  act  which  it  was 
adduced  to  justify.  The  nomination  of  an  umpire  was  by  no  means 
an  essential  article  of  the  arrangement :  that  might  have  been,  as  con 
venience  dictated,  postponed.  It  was  deeply  important,  however,  that 
the  fundamental  provisions  of  the  convention,  which  had  been  deliber 
ately  agreed  upon,  should  be  conclusively  adjusted. 

But,  unfortunately,  there  exist  strong  reasons  to  believe  that  there 
was  no  foundation  in  truth  for  the  assertion.  As  late  as  February  11, 
1839,  in  communicating  to  Mr.  Forsyth  the  fact  that  the  ratification  by 
his  government  had  not  been  transmitted  to  him,  the  Mexican  minister 
indicated  his  ignorance  of  such  a  fact,  and  explicitly  says,  "  that  he  is 
well  persuaded  that  the  delay  in  the  receipt  of  this  document  proceeds 
wholly  from  the  deplorable  condition  in  which  things  are  well  known  to 
be  in  his  unfortunate  country."  The  only  evidence  of  the  refusal  of 
the  King  of  Prussia  to  execute  the  functions  of  umpire,  for  which  office 
he  had  been  selected  by  the  parties,  is  contained  in  two  letters  from  Mr. 
Jones  to  Mr.  Forsyth,  under  date  of  the  10th  January,  1839,  and  of  the 
19th  of  the  same  month,  in  which  he  says  that  it  had  been  mentioned 
by  the  Mexican  minister.  It  was  then  designated  by  Mr.  Jones  as  a 
"frivolous  obstacle  ;"  and  Mr.  Tornel  was  informed  that  it  could  not 
constitute  "  any  solid  ground  for  the  non-ratification,"  as  it  might  "  easily 
be  obviated  by  inserting  a  clause  for  the  substitution  of  another  umpire.'? 

*  Mr.  Forsyth's  Report  to  the  President,  February  27, 1839. 
t  Mr.  Jones  to  Mr.  Forsyth,  December  31,  1838. 


61 

Mr.  Tornel  further  said,  "  that  he  and  the  President  (Bustamenta)  had 
written  on  the  subject  to  the  president  of  the  United  States  and  Mr. 
Forsyth."  As,  however,  no  such  letters  were  communicated  to  Con 
gress,  it  is  to  be  inferred  that  none  such  were  ever  received. 

In  this  state  of  affairs,  the  subject  was  again  taken  into  consideration 
by  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  of  the  house  of  Representatives. 
In  the  report  from  this  committee,  submitted  on  the  2d  of  March,  1839, 
they  consider  the  reasons  assigned  by  Mexico  for  her  omission  "  as 
altogether  insufficient  and  unsatisfactory ;"  and,  in  reference  to  that 
excuse  which  relates  to  the  refusal  of  the  King  of  Prussia  to  act,  they 
add,  "  but  as  no  direct  information  of  this  description  has  reached  the 
United  States,  the  committee  think  some  error  must  have  occurred,  as 
the  good  understanding  between  Prussia  and  the  United  States  would,  in 
all  probability,  have  induced  a  communication  to  the  United  States  as 
well  as  Mexico,  if  the  arbitration  had  been  declined." 

Negotiations  were,  however,  resumed;  and,  on  the  llth  of  April, 
1839,  another  convention  was  signed  by  the  ministers  of  the  two  powers, 
which,  in  its  preamble,  places  the  non-ratification  of  the  convention  of 
the  preceding  September  "  on  the  alleged  ground  that  the  consent  of  his 
Majesty,  the  King  of  Prussia,  to  provide  an  arbitrator  to  act  in  the  case 
provided  by  said  convention  could  not  be  obtained."  The  7th  article  of 
this  convention,  then,  in  the  same  terms  as  the  preceding,  provides  for 
the  reference  of  the  points  upon  which  the  board  may  differ,  to  the 
umpirage  of  the  individual  who  may  be  designated  by  the  King  of 
Prussia  to  perform  this  office. 

This  convention,  signed  on  the  llth  of  April,  1839,  provided  that  it 
should  be  ratified,  and  that  the  ratifications  should  "  be  exchanged  within 
twelve  months  from  the  signature,  or  sooner,  if  possible."  Again,  the 
United  States  acted  with  promptness  and  good  faith,  and  ratified  the 
arrangements  ;  while  the  government  of  Mexico,  pursuing  its  accustomed 
dilatory  and  procrastinating  policy,  postponed  its  action  to  so  late  a  day, 
that  the  ratifications  were  only  exchanged  on  the  8th  of  April,  1840 — 
leaving  but  three  days  of  the  twelve  months,  limited  for  that  act,  un- 
expired. 

The  proceedings  which  followed  the  consummation  of  this  convention 
will  form  the  next  topic  for  our  consideration. 


No.  IX. 

THE  convention  between  the  United  States  and  Mexico,  signed  on  the 
4th  of  April,  1839,  the  ratifications  of  which  were  exchanged  on  the  8th 
April,  1840,  opens  a  new  chapter  in  the  history  of  the  relations  between 
the  two  governments.  This  chapter,  though  furnishing  new  details  and 
presenting  new  evidences  of  wrong  and  contumely,  yet  exhibits  the  same 
general  characteristics  which  have  marked  every  part  of  the  conduct  of 
Mexico. 

On  the  10th  of  July,  1841,  the  President,  in  compliance  with  a  reso 
lution  of  the  Senate,  transmitted  to  that  body  a  message,  conveying  the 
information  in  his  possession  as  to  the  progress  and  actual  condition  of 
the  commission  then  in  session  under  this  convention.  It  covers  a  report 
of  the  American  members  of  the  board  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  under 
date  of  the  26th  May,  1841.  This  report,  made  by  Gov.  Marcy  and 
Judge  Rowan,  the  commissioners  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  dis 
closes  many  facts  which  it  is  important  to  notice  hi  the  discussion  we 
have  undertaken. 

The  third  article  of  the  convention  provided,  that  the  board  should 
meet  in  the  city  of  Washington  within  three  months  after  the  exchange 
of  ratifications,  and,  within  eighteen  months  from  the  time  of  its  meet 
ing,  should  terminate  its  duties.  The  Secretary  of  State  was  required 
to  give  notice  of  the  time  of  meeting  in  two  or  more  newspapers.  The 
day  appointed  for  the  meeting  was  the  8th  of  July,  1840.  The  Ameri 
can  members  having  met,  and  having  waited  until  the  25th  of  that  month, 
without  either  they  or  the  Department  of  State  receiving  any  information 
as  to  the  Mexican  members,  or  when  they  were  expected  to  arrive,  they 
adjourned  till  the  17th  August.  In  the  meantime,  the  Mexican  gentle 
men  had  arrived  ;  the  board  met ;  and  a  week  was  consumed  in  over 
coming  the  preliminary  difficulties  started  by  these  members  of  the 
board.  Another  obstacle  was  immediately  after  presented  from  the 
same  quarter,  deeply  involving  the  interests  of  the  claimants  and  the 
fundamental  principles  of  justice.  The  Mexican  commissioners  "  held 
that  the  two  governments  were  to  be  regarded  as  the  litigant  parties  be 
fore  the  board,  and  denied  to  the  claimants  all  access  to  it,  in  person  or 
by  their  agents,  and  even  the  right  to  present,  or  transmit  directly  to  it 
any  paper,  document,  or  written  proofs  ;  and  they  consequently  objected 
to,  and  voted  against  every  rule  or  regulation  that  proposed  to  give  to,  or 
recognize  in,  the  claimants,  the  right  to  appear  before  the  board,  or  to 


63 

address  any  communication  to  it.  These  views  the  undersigned  consid 
ered  to  be  erroneous,  and  they  believed,  that  the  adoption  of  them  would 
be  very  prejudicial,  if  not  entirely  destructive,  to  the  interests  of  the 
complainants." 

The  discussion  of  the  matter  continued  from  the  organization  of  the 
board  in  August,  until  the  seventh  of  October  following,  when  all  pros 
pects  of  an  agreement  being  abandoned,  and  the  question  not  being  one 
which  the  convention  permitted  to  be  referred  to  the  umpire,  the  Ameri 
can  commissioners  yielded,  as  the  only  means  of  preventing  the  object 
of  the  board  being  frustrated.  In  consequence  of  these  delays,  the  23d 
of  December  passed  without  the  parties,  whose  claims  were  to  be  inves 
tigated  and  adjudged,  having  received  any  notification  of  the  manner  in 
which  their  cases  were  to  be  presented,  or  the  proceedings  of  the  board 
to  be  conducted.  More  than  four  months,  of  the  eighteen  limited  for  the 
existence  of  the  board,  were  thus  wasted  without  making  the  smallest 
progress  in  the  business  intrusted  to  it. 

In  consequence  of  a  vacancy  created  by  the  resignation  of  Judge 
Rowan  as  a  member  of  the  board,  Judge  H.  M.  Breckenridge  was  ap 
pointed  to  supply  the  vacancy ;  and  on  the  23d  April,  1842,  having 
closed  their  sessions,  they  transmitted  to  the  State  Department  a  report 
of  their  proceedings.  This  report  exhibits,  in  part,  the  means  employed 
by  the  Mexican  functionaries  to  delay  the  decision  of  causes,  to  pervert 
the  ends  of  Justice,  and  the  audacity  with  which  they  put  at  defiance 
even  the  semblance  of  impartiality  and  fairness.  The  board  expired  by 
the  terms  of  the  convention  which  created  it,  without  disposing  of  the 
business  for  the  adjustment  of  which  it  had  been  organized,  on  the  25th 
February,  1842.  Messrs.  Marcy  and  Breckenridge  expressly  declare 
that  "  to  the  long  dela}^  in  the  first  place,  in  determining  upon  any  mode 
whatever  by  which  the  business  could  be  conducted,  and  then  to  the  in" 
direct  and  circuitous  manner  to  which  the  claimants  were  eventunlly 
obliged  to  resort  for  the  purpose  of  getting  their  papers  and  documents 
before  the  commissioners,  is,  in  our  opinion,  to  be  ascribed,  in  some 
measure,  the  failure  of  the  commission  to  examine,  all  the  cases  before 
it,  and  to  present  them  to  the  umpire  in  season  for  his  decision  thereon. 

*****#*# 
Many  of  the  cases,  presented  to  the  board  in  sufficient  time  to  have  been 
fully  acted  upon,  were  suspended  ;  some  of  them  at  the  instance  of  our 
Mexican  associates,  for  the  purpose  of  getting  documents  from  Mexico." 
"  In  one  important  case,  the  requisitions  for  documents  were  not  for 
warded  by  the  Mexican  government,  and  for  want  of  them,  being  such 
as  we  believed  Mexico  was  bound,  under  the  convention,  to  furnish,  the 
case  was  not  submitted  to  the  umpire,  and  in  our  opinion  could  not 


64 

have  been,  without  jeoparding  the  right  of  the  parties  interested  in  the 
claim." 

In  consequence  of  the  delays  and  embarrassments  thus  interposed,  a 
large  majority  of  the  claims  were  not  finally  passed  upon  by  the  board, 
and  the  unfortunate  claimants,  whose  cases  were  thus  left  undecided, 
have  already  waited  another  three  years,  without  any  effective  steps 
being  taken  to  bring  their  affairs  to  settlement. 

Two  circumstances  are  adverted  to  by  the  American  commissioners, 
which  peculiarly  merit  notice,  as  illustrative  of  the  principles  which 
Mexico  brought  into  this  investigation,  and  the  high-handed  course  with 
which  her  officers  conducted  themselves.  The  first  that  will  be  alluded 
to,  though  more  particularly  associated  with  an  individual  case,  yet,  in 
some  of  the  points  most  deserving  of  reprobation,  was  by  no  means  an 
insulated  one. 

An  American  citizen,  who  had  been  a  resident  merchant  in  Mexico 
for  several  years,  presented  a  claim  upon  Mexico  to  a  large  amount. 
To  a  considerable  extent,  the  claim  was  for  an  indemnity  for  losses  alleged 
to  have  been  sustained  by  the  illegal  acts  of  several  judicial  and  minis 
terial  functionaries,  by  the  perversion  of  authority  by  the  officers  of  jus 
tice,  and  by  spoliations  of  property,  under  color  of  law,  but  in  manifest 
violation  of  it.  Such  a  claim  necessarily  involved  a  critical  and  exten 
sive  examination  into  the  proceedings  of  the  courts  and  officers  whose 
acts  were  complained  of.  By  the  provisions  of  the  convention  under 
which  the  board  was  organized,  the  Mexican  government  stipulated  to 
furnish  such  documents  and  proofs  as  might  be  in  her  possession,  which 
might  be  necessary  to  substantiate  the  claims  against  her.  The  neces 
sary  requisition  was  prepared  and  sent,  and  duly  transmitted  to  Mexico, 
where,  notwithstanding  all  the  delays  interposed  by  the  Mexican  com 
missioners,  it  was  received  nine  months  before  the  board  was  to  conclude 
its  labors.  The  documents  called  for  were  minutely  described,  and  the 
particular  public  offices  where  they  were  to  be  found  precisely  designa 
ted.  They  were  twenty-one  in  number.  Of  these,  no  notice  whatever 
was  taken  of  twelve  ;  and  papers  purporting  to  be  those  described  in  the 
remaining  nine  specifications,  when  they  came  to  be  examined,  were 
discovered  to  be,  to  a  great  extent,  both  false  and  imperfect.  The  Ameri 
can  commissioners  specified  five  of  these  documents,  thus  stamped  with 
discredit  on  their  face,  and  pointed  out  in  detail  the  proofs  of  their  falsifi 
cation.  They  draw,  from  the  circumstances  which  they  detail,  these 
three  conclusions : 

"  1st.  That  Mexico  has  wholly  omitted  to  send  even  a  moiety  of  the 
documents  which  she  has  bound  herself  by  the  convention  to  furnish  ; 


65 

and  that  no  reason  for  this  non-compliance  with  the  terms  of  that  con 
vention  are  given  by  her  to  the  board. 

2d.  That  several  of  the  documents  actually  sent  are,  on  the  face  of 
them,  not  full  records,  but  refer  to  other  acts  which  ought  to  appear  in 
the  same,  but  do  not. 

3d.  That  there  are  discrepancies  between  documents  thus  trans 
mitted  from  Mexico,  and  others  equally  authenticated,  which,  without 
explanation,  mutually  destroy  each  other's  credit." 

In  consequence  of  these  acts  of  omission  to  comply  with  a  solemn 
treaty  stipulation,  and  the  fraud  attempted  to  be  perpetrated  by  Mexican 
functionaries,  in  imposing  surreptitious  papers  upon  the  board  of  com 
missioners,  the  case  was  left  undetermined.  Thus,  and  by  such  means, 
a  claim,  estimated  by  the  American  commissioners  at  upwards  of  $690,- 
000,  and  so  stated  by  them  in  their  official  report,  with  all  the  accumu 
lation  of  interest  from  February,  1842,  has  been  thus  far  lost  to  an  Ame 
rican  citizen,  stricken  down  from  affluence  to  penury  by  the  atrocious 
acts  of  the  Mexican  government  and  functionaries.  Nor  did  the  outrage 
end  here.  As  has  been  stated,  the  American  commissioners,  in  a  paper, 
understood  to  have  been  drawn  up  by  Judge  Marcy,  the  senior  member 
of  the  American  commission,  and  eminent  for  his  judicial  accomplish 
ments  and  experience,  designated  five  particular  documents,  as  exhibiting 
on  their  face,  defects  and  contradictions.  At  the  termination  of  the  sit 
tings  of  the  board,  the  Mexican  commissioners,  against  the  earnest  re 
monstrances  of  their  American  associates,  laid  hands  on  these  spurious 
papers,  containing  on  their  face  the  proof  of  the  frauds  thus  attempted 
to  be  perpetrated  by  the  Mexican  authorities,  who  had  transmitted  them 
as  genuine  ;  and,  notwithstanding  the  distinct  opposition  made  by  Mr. 
Webster,  then  Secretary  of  State,  removed  them  beyond  the  control  of 
the  government  of  the  United  States.  Not  satisfied  with  thus  bearding 
our  own  government  in  the  heart  of  its  own  capital,  they  intimate,  in  re 
ply  to  Mr.  Webster's  remonstrance  against  this  conduct,  that  they  have 
abstracted  or  removed  only  six  of  the  papers,  specifying  the  same  five 
which  Governor  Marcy  had  condemned,  and  assign  as  their  justification, 
that  they  were  original  expedientes  (records)  from  courts  of  Mexico, 
which,  on  account  of  their  character,  ought  to  remain  in  their  hands.  It 
may  not  be  unimportant  to  add,  that  these  are  not  the  only  documents 
thus  abstracted,  and  that  not  one  of  the  five  either  was,  or  purported 
to  be,  an  original  expidiente  ;  nor  was  an  original  asked  for  in  the  requi 
sition.* 

The  comments  of  Mr.  Upshur,  on  this  matter,  in  his  despatch  to  Mr 
Thompson,  of  July  25,  1843,"f  shows  the  views  taken  of  these  acts  of 

*  27th  Con.,  2d  Session,  Senate  Doc.  320.      f23th  Con.  2d  Session,  House  Doc.  158 

5 


high  dignitaries  of  Mexico  by  the  American  government.  "  The  con 
duct  of  Mexico,  as  it  seems  to  me.  had  made  it  the  duty  of  the  United 
States  to  insist  on  prompt  and  specific  relief,  so  far  as  this  case  is  con 
cerned.  She  has  rendered  herself  liable  to  the  charge  of  having  broken 
her  faith,  and  disregarded  her  obligations.  She  has  not  complied  with 
a  single  stipulation  of  the  convention  of  1839.  She  has  not  even  pro 
fessed  to  have  produced  a  large  number,  nearly  half  (more  than  half)  of 
the  documents  called  for;  and  many  of  those  which  she  did  produce, 
were  either  imperfect,  or  grossly  falsified.  The  American  commission 
ers  complained  of  this,  but  without  redress  ;  and,  to  add  to  the  injuries 
and  contemtpuous  conduct  of  the  Mexican  commissioners,  they  took 
back  with  them,  against  the  consent  and  remonstrances  of  the  American 
commissioners,  and  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  all  the  falsified  and  imper 
fect  documents  which  they  had  submitted.  All  this  will  fully  appear 
from  the  enclosed  extracts  from  the  proceedings  of  the  board.  It  is  quite 
evident  that,  so  far  as  the  claimant  is  concerned,  he  can  have  little  hope 
of  success  before  any  new  commission.  He  must  necessarily  rely  upon 
the  same  evidence  which  he  has  heretofore  applied  for  in  vain  ;  and  he 
must  make  his  demand  on  the  same  government,  which  has  heretofore 
treated  the  same  demand  with  neglect  and  contempt.  He  can  have  no 
security  whatever,  that  he  will  receive  from  a  second  commission  a  more 
just  treatment  than  he  received  from  the  first.  If  he  should  be  com 
pelled  to  submit  his  claims  de  novo,  and  upon  the  same  principles  which 
governed  the  former  imperfect  and  unfair  consideration  of  it,  there  is  no 
reason  to  hope  for  anything  better,  than  a  repetition  of  the  same  unjust 
treatment  which  he  has  heretofore  received. 

"  And  how  stands  our  government  in  relation  to  this  matter  ?  We 
have  undertaken  to  see  justice  done  to  our  injured  and  complaining  citi 
zens.  We  have  demanded  justice  of  the  Mexican  government.  We 
have  entered  into  stipulations  with  that  government,  by  which  a  fair  and 
honorable  adjustment  of  all  these  matters  might  be  had.  Mexico,  by 
her  own  act,  came  under  a  new  obligation.  The  debt  which  she  owed 
to  our  citizens  she  guarantied  by  a  solemn  compact  with  our  govern 
ment.  On  our  part,  we  have  kept  our  faith  ;  while  she  has  broken  hers. 
This  has  changed  the  whole  character  of  the  question.  Our  government 
is  now  a  party — not  in  interest,  but  in  honor.  We  are  bound  to  redress 
the  wrong  which  has  been  done  to  one  of  our  citizens  ;  and  this  not 
merely  by  the  general  obligation  which  rests  upon  every  nalion  to  pro 
tect  and  defend  its  own  people,  but  by  the  additional  consideration  that, 
having  undertaken  to  do  this,  we  are  committed  in  honor  not  to  give 
back.  We  must  not  permit  Mexico  to  retreat  from  the  agreement  which 


67 

she  has  made  with  us,  nor  to  excuse  herself  from  the  faithful  perform 
ance  of  it." 

"In  bringing  this  subject  before  the  Mexican  government,  it  is  neces 
sary  that  you  should  use  a  strong  and  decided  tone.  Atonement  should 
have  been  made  long  ago  for  the  numerous  and  flagrant  wrongs  done  by 
that  power  to  citizens  of  this  country.  Unnecessary  delays  must  not  be 
submitted  to,  nor  will  slight  excuses  be  received.  The  honor  of  the 
government  is  pledged  to  our  own  people  for  the  diligent  and  proper  pro 
secution  of  these  claims.  Mexico  can  no  longer,  consistently  with  her 
own  honor,  or  the  rights  of  our  citizens,  or  what  is  due  to  this  govern 
ment,  seek  to  delay  the  execution  of  what  justice  so  plainly  requires  at 
her  hands." 


X. 

IN  the  preceding  numbers,  we  have  presented  the  history  and  charac 
ter  of  the  relations  which  have  subsisted  between  the  United  States  and 
Mexico,  from  the  time  the  latter  nation  asserted  her  independence  of 
Spain.  Selecting,  as  our  limited  space  required,  only  a  few  among  the 
most  prominent  circumstances  which  indicated  the  disposition  of  the 
Mexican  authorities,  the  character  of  their  people,  and  the  tendency  of 
their  institutions,  sufficient  evidence  has  been  adduced  to  demonstrate 
that,  at  least,  so  far  as  respects  the  United  States,  their  conduct  has  been 
marked  by  cruelty,  faithlessness,  and  an  utter  disregard  to  all  the  obliga 
tions  which  the  laws  of  truth  and  honor  impose.  The  most  friendly 
advances  have  been  returned  by  bitter  resentments  ;  the  solicitations  6f 
kindness  repelled  with  insult  and  outrage  ;  fair  dealing  and  adherence  to 
truth  have  been  equally  lost  sight  of,  in  their  diplomatic  correspondence  ; 
while  no  respect  has  been  paid  to  the  restraints  which  humanity  or 
justice  imposes  upon  the  actions  of  men  and  communities.  In  one  of 
the  most  recent  official  documents,  emanating  from  the  government  of  the 
United  States,  upon  the  subject  of  these  relations,  the  language  of  Mr. 
Webster  will  be  found  to  corroborate  the  views  taken  by  other  distin 
guished  functionaries  of  this  nation.  In  his  despatch  to  Mr.  Thompson 
of  the  8th  July,  1842,  in  commenting  on  a  communication  from  Mr.  de 
Bocanegra,  Secretary  of  State  and  Foreign  Relations  of  the  government 
of  Mexico,  equally  unprecedented  and  extraordinary  in  its  contents  and 
character,  as  in  the  mode  of  its  transmission,  Mr.  Webster  takes  occasion 
to  repel  some  groundless  accusations  preferred  bv  the  Mexican  Secre- 


68 

tary.*  The  United  States,  he  says,  "  is  wholly  ignorant  of  any  sacri 
fices  made  by  Mexico,  in  order  to  preserve  peace,  or  of  any  occasion 
calling  on  its  government  to  manifest  uncommon  forbearance.  On  the 
contrary,  the  government  of  the  United  States  cannot  but  be  of  opinion 
that,  if  the  history  of  the  occurrences  between  the  two  governments, 
the  state  of  things  at  this  moment  existing  between  them,  be  regarded, 
both  the  one  and  the  other  will  demonstrate  that  it  is  the  conduct  of  the 
government  of  the  United  States  which  has  been  marked  in  an  especial 
manner  by  moderation  and  forbearance.  Injuries  and  wrongs  have  been 
sustained  by  citizens  of  the  United  States,  not  inflicted  by  individual 
Mexicans,  but  by  the  authorities  of  the  government ;  for  which  injuries 
and  wrongs,  numerous  as  they  are,  and  outrageous  as  is  the  character  of 
some  of  them,  and  acknowledged  as  they  are  by  Mexico  herself,  redress 
has  been  sought  only  by  mild  and  peaceable  means,  and  no  indemnity 
asked  but  such  as  the  strictest  justice  imperatively  demanded.  A  desire 
not  to  disturb  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  two  countries,  has  led  the 
government  of  the  United  States  to  be  content  with  the  lowest  measure 
of  remuneration.  Mexico  herself  must  admit  that,  in  all  these  transac 
tions,  the  conduct  of  the  United  States  towards  her  has  been  signalized 
not  by  the  infliction  of  injuries,  but  by  the  manifestation  of  a  friendly 
feeling  and  a  conciliatory  spirit."  In  an  address  from  Mr.  Thompson  to 
the  diplomatic  corps  in  Mexico,  under  date  of  June  6,  1842,  he  says  : 
"  Not  only  have  we  never  done  an  act  of  an  unfriendly  character  towards 
Mexico,  but  I  confidently  assert  that,  from  the  very  moment  of  the  ex 
istence  of  the  Republic,  we  have  allowed  to  pass  unimproved  no  oppor 
tunity  of  doing  Mexico  an  act  of  kindness.  I  will  not  now  enumerate 
the  acts  of  that  character,  both  to  the  government  of  Mexico  and  its 
citizens,  public  and  private.  If  this  government  choose  to  forget  them, 
I  will  not  recall  them.  Whilst  such  has  been  our  course  to  Mexico,  it 
is  with  pain  I  am  forced  to  say,  that  the  open  violations  of  the  rights  of 
American  citizens  by  the  authorities  of  Mexico  have  been  greater,  for 
the  last  fifteen  years,  than  those  of  all  the  governments  of  Christendom 
united  ;  and  yet  we  have  left  the  redress  of  all  these  multiplied  and 
accumulated  wrongs  to  friendly  negotiation,  without  having  even  intimat 
ed  a  disposition  to  resort  to  force." 

If  the  representations,  which  we  have  furnished  of  the  conduct  of 
Mexico,  expressed  and  reiterated  for  a  long  series  of  years  by  functiona 
ries  of  the  American  government,  without  distinction  of  party,  be  not 
grossly  exaggerated  and  overcharged,  upon  what  possible  ground  can  the 
allegations  rest  which  have  frequently  been  made  within  the  last  few 

*  27th  Con.  2d  Sess.  House  doc.  226. 


69 

months,  that  our  sister  Republic  is  an  unoffending  neighbor,  scrupulously 
faithful  in  the  maintenance  of  her  faith  and  in  the  performance  of  her 
obligations,  cautiously  avoiding  furnishing  us  with  any  cause  of  offence, 
and  anxious  to  cultivate  with  us  the  most  friendly  relations,  by  the 
manifestation,  on  every  occasion,  of  the  kindest  dispositions  towards  us. 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  these  representations  do  not  overstep  the  bounds  of 
truth,  the  inquiry  naturally  suggests  itself,  has  Mexico,  in  her  intercourse 
with  other  nations,  exhibited  the  same  characteristics,  or  have  they  re 
ceived  a  different  treatment  at  her  hands  ?  If  the  citizens  and  govern 
ment  of  the  United  States  are  the  only  parties  who  complain  of  the 
conduct  of  Mexico — if,  in  her  deportment  to  the  subjects  of  other  nations, 
she  gives  no  cause  of  offence,  suspicions  may  arise  that  either  our  com 
plaints  are  unfounded  or  exaggerated,  or  that  some  causes  must  exist  for 
this  asperity  of  feeling  and  violence  of  conduct  towards  us. 

Allusion  was  made  in  a  previous  number  to  the  deportment  of  Mexico 
towards  other  nations  ;  and  it  may  perhaps  throw  a  new  and  distinct 
light  upon  the  character  of  that  government,  if  we  devote  some  little 
time,  to  an  authentic  statement  of  the  nature  and  character  of  her  diffi 
culties  with  France.  We  have  before  us  an  exposition  of  those  difficul 
ties  in  an  official  shape.  The  document  to  which  we  refer  is  the  ultima 
tum  of  the  Baron  Deffandis,  minister  plenipotentiary  of  France,  addressed 
to  the  Mexican  government,  and  dated  on  board  the  frigate  L'Hermione, 
March  21,  1833.  The  copy  which  we  have  of  this  paper  is  a  Spanish 
translation,  published  by  the  Mexican  authorities  in  a  supplement  to  the 
"  Al  Diario  del  Sobiano  de  Mejico"  of  the  31st  March,  1838.  From 
this  document  we  give  the  following  extracts : 

"  During  the  thirteen  years  which  have  transpired  since  regular  and 
continued  relations  have  been  established  between  France  and  Mexico, 
a  large  number  of  the  subjects  of  his  Majesty,  established  in  the  territory 
of  the  Republic,  have  found  themselves  exposed  to  grave  attacks  upon 
their  persons  and  their  property. 

"  The  undersigned,  minister  plenipotentiary  of  France,  will  not  stop  to 
detail  the  particulars  of  these  assaults ;  which,  by  their  atrocity,  would, 
in  the  recital,  necessarily  communicate  to  this  note  a  character  of  hostile 
severity,  which  he  does  not  desire  to  give  it.  For  this  reason  he  will  not 
particularize — 

"  Either  the  assassination  of  Atenzingo,  in  1833 — in  which  five  French 
men,  who  enjoyed  general  esteem,  and  exercised  an  occupation  useful  to 
the  community,  were  decapitated  ;  after  which,  they  were  tied  to  the  tails 
of  horses,  and  dragged  (including  a  female)  by  persons  known  to  the 
Mexicans,  who  performed  this  act  at  midday,  vociferating  death  to  stran 
gers—an  assassination  which  remains  unpunished  after  a  lapse  of  five 
years,  under  the  pretext  that  the  judicial  forms  of  the  country  are  slow 


70 

and  complicated ;  notwithstanding  that,  within  this  period,  two  French 
men,  who  committed  a  murder  at  S.  Luis  Potosi,  on  the  21st  October  last, 
and  shrouded  the  act  in  the  most  profound  mystery,  were  arrested,  tried, 
condemned,  and  finally  executed  on  the  31st  day  of  the  same  month, 
exactly  ten  days  after  perpetration  of  the  crime  : 

"  Nor  of  the  butchery  (carniceria)  at  Tampico,  in  1835,  in  which 
twenty-eight  foreigners,  among  whom  were  two  Frenchmen,  made 
prisoners  by  Mexican  troops,  in  an  attack  made  by  them  on  the  territory 
of  the  Republic  in  favor  of  Texas,  were  murdered  some  days  after,  being 
shot  down  by  musketry  in  a  walled  yard,  in  which  they  were  enclosed, 
like  wild  beasts.  For  this  act  the  Mexican  government  has  never  been 
able,  although  required  by  France  two  years  since,  to  show  in  virtue  of 
what  law,  or  in  conformity  with  what  judicial  proceedings,  these  indivi- 
als  were  condemned  and  executed  ;  a  butchery  rendered  more  odious  by 
the  impunity  extended  to  Mexican  officers  who  were  the  associates  of 
these  strangers,  and  by  the  promotion  to  the  rank  of  General,  of  Colonel 
Gregorio  Gomez,  he  having  presided  at  the  council  which,  to  try  the 
accused,  limited  his  acts  to  the  simple  order  of  assassination: 

"  Nor  of  the  iniquitous  and  attrocious  judgment  pronounced  by  Senor 
Tomayo,  one  of  the  judges  of  the  capital,  who,  during  the  last  year, 
condemned  to  ten  years'  hard  labor  at  Vera  Cruz  (in  other  words,  a  fright 
ful  death  by  prolonged  suffering),  a  Frenchman,  whom  he  desired  to  re 
present  as  guilty  of  homicide,  without  proof,  refusing  to  receive  evi 
dence  of  his  innocence,  in  violation  of  all  legal  forms  and  of  the  sacred 
right  of  defending  one's  self  against  false  accusations  : 

"  Nor  of  the  recently  attempted  assassination,  by  Colonel  Pardo,  com 
mandant  of  the  city  of  Colima,  in  a  public  street,  of  a  Frenchman  who 
exercised  the  honorable  profession  of  medicine,  and  who  was  a  director 
ami  physician  to  the  hospital  in  that  city,  for  no  other  cause  than  that  the 
Frenchman  had  refused  to  lend  money  to  the  colonel ;  from  which  attempt 
the  colonel  escaped  only  by  a  kind  of  miracle,  but  covered  with  wounds. 
For  these  atrocious  injuries  he  has  not  only  been  unable  to  obtain  any 
redress,  but  has  even  been  denied  protection  for  the  future  from  the  civil 
and  judicial  authorities,  and  thus  has  been  compelled  to  abandon  the 
country  and  all  the  interests  he  held  there. 

"  The  undersigned  will  not  undertake  at  this  time  to  enter  into  a  detailed 
relation  of  many  other  outrages  less  execrable,  but  not  less  iniquitous, 
which  Frenchmen  have  been  compelled  to  suffer  in  their  persons  and 
their  property.  Such  a  detail  would  extend  this  communication  to  a 
length  which  is  the  less  necessary,  after  the  voluminous  correspondence 
which  has  taken  place  on  the  same  subject  between  the  French  legation 
and  the  Mexican  government.  The  undersigned  will,  therefore,  content 
himself  laying  down  three  general  categories,  under  which  will  naturally 
be  arranged  these  less  odious  inquiries  to  which  his  countrymen  have 
been  subjected. 

"  1.  The  sacking  and  destruction  of  property,  pending  the  disturbances 
of  the  country,  which  have  been  done  either  by  the  populace  or  by  the 


71 

belligerent  parties ;  as  for  example,  the  sacking  of  the  Parian  in  Mexico, 
in  Tehuantepec,  in  Oajaca,  and  in  Orizava ;  the  mutiny  in  Mexico  on 
account  of  the  depreciation  of  the  copper  currency,  &c. 

"  2.  The  violent  collection  of  forced  loans,  in  violation  equally  of  all 
national  rights  and  of  subsisting  treaties,  and  not  less  opposed  to  natural 
equity  by  the  unjust  partiality  manifested  in  the  apportionment. 

!{  3.  The  denial  of  justice,  judicial  acts  and  decisions,  equally  illegal 
and  iniquitous,  of  the  administrative  authorities,  military  and  civil,  as  for 
example,  the  confiscation,  contrary  to  the  maxims  of  humanity  and  of  the 
law,  of  the  Republic,  of  the  cargo  of  Captain  Rives,  who  was  wrecked  by 
a  tempest  on  the  coast  of  Mazaltan,  involving  the  death  of  this  Frenchman, 
which  was  brought  about  by  the  sufferings  endured  in  five  anxi  jus  years, 
uselessly  expended,  in  unavailing  efforts  to  obtain  that  repa^auon  which 
was  unceasingly  promised.  In  this  affair,  certain  employees  of  the 
custom-house  figured,  who  subsequently  burned  their  records,  and  fled  to 
avoid  rendering  an  account  to  the  government. 

"  Closing,  contrary  to  treaties  and  laws,  the  commercial  establishment 
of  Mr.  Besson,  in  Bolanos,  the  imprisonment  of  this  Frenchman  by  the 
local  authorities,  as  a  punishment  for  having  invoked  and  obtained  the 
impotent  protection  of  the  supreme  government.  In  this  case,  an  officer 
of  the  custom-house  prominently  figured,  who  was  subsequently  dis 
missed  for  being  concerned  with  a  band  of  robbers,  and  for  his  own 
defalcations." 

This  list  of  outrages  will  be  continued  in  our  next  by  further  extracts 
from  this  ultimatum  of  Baron  Deffandis. 


No.  XL 

WE  resume  the  extracts  from  the  French  ultimatum,  addressed  to 
the  Mexican  government  on  the  21st  of  March,  1838,  recapitulating  the 
causes  of  complaint  for  which  redress  was  demanded,  viz  : 

"  The  banishment  and  ruin  of  M.  Gallix  in  Tehuantepec,  under  pretexts 
which  were  not  stated,  and  probably  not  even  invented  until  long  after 
the  act  was  committed,  and  which  were  immediately  ascertained  to  be 
both  false  and  calumnious.  In  this  transaction  a  judge  who  had  been 
already  condemned  by  a  superior  tribunal  for  prevarication,  was  a  promi 
nent  actor. 

"  The  persecution  and  ruin  of  M.  Darenton,  in  Tampico,  by  decisions 
subversive  of  the  rights  of  nations,  and  of  the  legislation  of  the  Republic. 
In  this  affair  a  judge  who  had  been  accused  before  the  tribunals  of  Vera 
Cruz,  of  causing  death  by  poisoning,  and  had  evaded  by  flight  the  pro 
ceedings  directed  against  him,  was  conspicuous: 


72 

"The  sequestration  of  the  goods  of  Mr.  Arbel,in  Tampico,  at  the  instance 
of  a  party  who  refused  to  let  it  be  known  who  he  was,  which  sentence  of 
sequestration  has  continued  for  three  years,  in  consequence  of  the  illegal 
failure  to  provide  in  that  department  a  tribunal  of  appeal : 

"  The  prolonged  imprisonment  and  barbarous  treatment  of  Mr.  Le  Dos 
by  the  instrumentality  of  judicial  papers,  which  were  forged  and  recog 
nised  as  such  by  the  superior  judges.  In  this  affair,  officers  of  the  army, 
who  constituted  the  tribunal,  figured  as  those  guilty  of  these  falsifi 
cations." 

The  reclamations  continually  pressed  by  the  Minister  of  France  against 
these  various  outrages  have  been  as  constantly  repelled  by  the  Mexican 
authorities.  If  France  has  been  able  to  obtain  occasiorally  the  suspen 
sion,  for  a  brief  period,  of  these  iniquitous  proceedings  against  Iier  sub 
jects,  it  has  more  rarely  been  able  to  obtain  a  cessation  of  them,  and 
never  to  procure  any  reparation  for  those  that  had  been  committed.  The 
continuation  during  so  long  a  period  of  such  a  state  of  things,  can  be 
explained  and  accounted  for  only  by  the  continued  good  feeling  on  the 
part  of  France,  and  by  the  change  in  the  systems  of  negotiation  success 
fully  established  with  her  by  the  Mexican  authorities. 

The  first  of  these  systems  consisted  in  a  recognition  by  Mexico  of  the 
justice  of  the  complaints  preferred  by  the  French  legation  ;  in  expressing 
in  stronger  terms  than  even  France  herself  employed,  the  indignation 
felt  by  Mexico  for  these  outrages  upon  the  subjects  of  his  Majesty ;  in 
palliating  every  case  of  wrong,  by  urging  the  limited  advance  which  the 
country  had  made  in  civilisation,  the  civil  dissentions,  together  with  the 
errors  and  defects  in  the  legislation,  the  imperfect  organization  of  the 
administration,  as  well  of  the  army  as  of  the  tribunals  of  justice,  the 
inexperience  of  the  public  functionaries  of  all  classes,  &c.  ;  and  finally, 
and  above  all,  this  system  consisted  in  the  promise  of  reparation,  implor 
ing,  however,  delay,  in  consequence  of  the  deranged  state  of  their 
finances,  which  entreaties  the  generous  and  friendly  disposition  of  France 
would  not  permit  her  to  refuse. 

The  second  system  has  had  a  more  recent  origin,  and  a  more  brief 
duration.  It  has  had  several  bases  in  succession. 

1.  To  make  these  complaints  the  subjects  of  discussion,  which  promised 
to  be  never-ending  from  the  unheard-of  dilatoriness  with  which  the  Mexi 
can  ministry  furnished  their  communications  on  the  application  of  the 
principles  of  the  universal  rights  of  nations,  which  the  French  legation 
had  cited  to  sustain  its  reclamations. 

2.  When  these  discussions,  and  all  the  delays  which  Mexico  could 
interpose  were  brought  to  a  close,  by  answering  these  references  to  the 
universal  law  of  nations,  by  opposing  to  them  the  Mexican  rules  of  law, 
and  by  repelling  every  description  of  complaint  for  the  denial  of  justice, 


73 

illegal  sentences,  scandalous  exactions  of  certain  magistrates  upon  the 
sole  reason  that,  under  the  Mexican  Constitution,  the  judicial  power  was 
independent  of  the  Executive,  which  had  authority  only  to  call  into 
action  the  administration  of  justice,  but  none  to  direct  or  supervise 
whatever  might  be  the  causes  of  complaint  against  the  judges,  or  what 
ever  might  be  the  proofs  by  which  they  were  sustained. 

3.  To  elude  the  objections  urged  against  these  novel  doctrines  by  the 
most  trifling  and  dilatory  answers,  or  by  a  silence  absolute  and  continu 
ous,  and  conniving  at  the  same  time  at  the  repetition  of  similar  acts  as 
those  in  which  these  complaints  had  originated. 

4.  To  stigmatize  as  false   and   calumnious  the  reclamations   of  the 
subjects  of  France  against  the   different  authorities   of  the  Republic, 
without  discussing  either  the  acts  or  the  proofs  which  established  these 
outrages,  and  satisfying  themselves  with  the  pure  and  simple  denial  of 
the  allegations  by  the  parties  inculpated. 

5.  To  indicate,  at  times,  the  intention  of  exciting  against  the  French 
claimants  fresh  persecutions,  for  the  purpose  of  stifling  their  complaints, 
or  at  least  of  abandoning  them  to  the  tender  mercies  of  the  very  parties 
whose  conduct  gave  rise  to  the  reclamation. 

6.  To  denounce,  without  any  discussion  of  the  allegations  themselves, 
or  of  the  proofs  by  which  they  are  sustained,  as  offences  against  the 
Mexican  people  and  government,  the  complaints  of  the  French  legation 
on  behalf  of  their  fellow  subjects,  and,  under  this  pretext,  to  employ 
language  insulting  to  the  legation,  and  sometimes  even  to  its  govern 
ment. 

7.  Finally,  and  to  complete  this  system  of  operation,  to  repulse  in 
mass  the  reclamations  of  France  and  the  principles  upon  which  they 
rest,  suggesting,  on  the  other  hand,  the  preposterous  proposition  of  sub 
mitting  the  entire  subject  to  the  arbitrament  of  a  third  power,  as  if  the 
matter  merely  involved  those  ordinary  questions  of  doctrine  or  of  inte 
rests  upon  which  doubt  might  be  entertained,  and,  on  the  contrary,  did 
not  grow  out  of  outrages  upon  the  security  of  persons  and  of  property, 
which  can  never  be  submitted  to  arbitration  in  conformity  either  with 
public  or  private  right ;  or  as  if  the  dignity  and  the  obligations  of  France 
could  ever  permit  it  to  submit  to  a  third  party,  even  as  a  matter  of  form, 
(for  it  is  not  possible  to  suppose  there  can  be  any  diversity   of  opinion 
among  civilized  nations   upon  such  questions),  to  decide  whether  the 
spoliations,  the  violences,  the  assassinations  of  which  her  subjects  have 
been  the  victims,  are  or  are  not  entitled  to  ample  remuneration. 

In  this  summary  and  somewhat  abridged  recapitulation  of  the  outrages 
perpetrated  upon  the  subjects  of  France  in  various  parts  of  the  Mexican 
territory,  either  originally  prompted  by  individuals  high  in  office  under 


74 

the  Mexican  government,  or  subsequently  sustained  and  protected  by 
them,  and  in  the  various  pretexts  and  subterfuges  to  which  that  govern 
ment  systematically  resorted  to  evade  the  responsibility  which  the  law 
of  nations  attached  to  such  conduct,  may  be  read  a  brief  history  of  our 
intercourse  with  that  country.  The  citizens  of  the  United  States  who 
had  placed  themselves  within  the  Mexican  territory  were  far  more 
numerous  than  those  of  any  other  nation  j  they  possessed  a  much 
greater  amount  of  property  to  excite  the  rapacity  of  these  freebooters ; 
and,  finally,  there  was  infinitely  less  promptitude  and  energy  displayed 
by  our  functionaries  in  the  investigation  of  the  circumstances  which  ac 
companied  these  wrongs,  and  in  enforcing  compensation,  than  were 
exhibited  by  the  representative  of  any  other  power  ;  and,  consequently, 
the  list  of  our  injuries  is  proportionally  larger,  and  the  atrocity  of  the 
crimes  of  which  Americans  have  been  the  victims  have  been  of  a  deeper 
shade  than  those  set  forth  in  the  French  ultimatum.  Similar  devices 
and  pretexts  were  resorted  to  in  our  case,  as  in  that  of  France  :  promises 
of  redress  as  freely  made,  and  as  rarely  fulfilled.  Parties  complaining 
were  subjected  to  new  and  more  reckless  persecutions,  the  great  bulk  of 
American  citizens  driven  from  the  country,  and  that  commerce  which 
had  already  reached  the  amount  of  nearly  ten  millions  per  annum,  and 
which,  under  more  auspicious  circumstances,  would  rapidly  have  in 
creased,  to  the  mutual  advantage  of  both  nations,  rapidly  fell  to  about 
half  a  million. 

We  shall  next  indicate  the  course  which  France  adopted  in  this  pos 
ture  of  affairs,  and  the  consequences  which  resulted  from  it. 


No.  XII. 

IN  continuation  of  the  paper  from  which  we  are  extracting,  the  French 
minister  thus  proceeds :  "  In  this  state  of  things  his  Majesty's  govern 
ment,  convinced  that  the  Mexican  cabinet  had  sufficiently  signified  what 
were  its  dispositions  in  respect  to  the  demands  of  France  for  the  repara 
tion  of  wrongs  inflicted,  has  ordered  the  undersigned  to  present  once 
more,  and  for  the  last  time,  the  same  demands  upon  the  Mexican  gov 
ernment. 

"  I.  The  treasury  of  the  Republic  shall  deliver,  prior  to  the  25th  day 
of  May  next,  on  board  the  French  squadron  which  may  then  be  at  Vera 
Cruz,  the  sum  of  $600,000 — the  disposition  of  which  sum  his  Majesty's 
government  reserves  to  itself,  as  well  as  the  apportionment  among  those 


75 

Frenchmen  who  have  suffered,  within  the  Mexican  territory,  injuries 
sustained  under  the  three  heads  or  classes  which  are  designated. 
******* 

"  This  payment  being  made,  the  Mexican  government  shall  be  released 
from  all  claims  by  France,  embraced  within  the  said  three  classes,  for 
causes  arising  prior  to  the  first  day  of  the  present  month  of  March. 

"  II.  The  credits  which  French  citizens  hold  against  the  Mexican 
government,  are  not  comprehended  within  the  preceding  stipulation,  &c.j 
and  the  Mexican  government  solemnly  binds  itself  to  interpose  no  future 
difficulties  in  the  way  of  the  regular  and  prompt  payment  of  these 
debts. 

"  III.  General  Gregorio  Gomez,  who  ordered  in  Tampico  the  assassi 
nation  of  the  two  Frenchmen,  Demovesent  and  Sausieu,  shall  be  deprived 
of  his  employment ;  and  there  shall  be  paid,  as  an  indemnification  to 
the  families  of  the  two  victims,  the  sum  of  twenty  thousand  dollars. 

"  Colonel  Pardo,  commandant  of  Coluria,  guilty  of  the  attempt  to 
assassinate  and  severely  wounding  M.  Giraud  Dulong,  shall  be  deprived 
of  his  office  ;  and  there  shall  be  paid  to  this  Frenchman,  for  this  outrage, 
the  sum  of  nine  thousand  six  hundred  and  sixty  dollars. 

"  Senor  Tamayo,  judge  in  Mexico,  shall  be  deprived  of  his  office,  for 
the  illegal,  iniquitous,  and  atrocious  sentence  which  he  perversely  gave 
against  M.  Petro  Lemoine.  This  Frenchman  shall  be  immediately  set 
at  liberty,  and  shall  receive  an  indemnification  of  $2,000  for  the  pro 
longed  and  wholly  unjust  detention  which  he  has  suffered,  and  the  bad 
personal  treatment  which  he  endured  in  prison.  There  shall  be  paid  an 
indemnification  of  $15,000  to  the  families  of  the  Frenchmen  who  were 
assassinated  with  impunity  at  Atenzingo. 

"  Those  indemnifications  provided  in  this  article  are  included  in  the 
sum  total  demanded  in  the  first  article. 

"  The  undersigned  has  certainly  the  right — and  perhaps  it  is  his  duty 
— to  demand  the  punishment  of  a  number  of  other  functionaries  who  are 
designated,  for  the  offences  stated  ;  but,  availing  himself  of  the  discretion 
reposed  in  him  by  his  government,  he  confines  himself  to  the  requiring 
the  punishment — exceedingly  moderate  in  its  character — of  the  before- 
named  individuals,  whose  barbarous  conduct  is  abhorrent  to  every  prin 
ciple  of  justice,  of  morality,  and  civilisation. 

"  IV.  The  most  precise  and  distinct  stipulations  are  required  for  the 
future. 

******* 

"Such  are  the  demands  which  the  undersigned,  as  already  indicated, 
is  charged  to  address  once  more,  and  for  the  last  time,  to  the  Mexican 
government.  The  present  note  is  an  ultimaium  ;  and  the  determination 


76 

of  France,  which  it  explains,  is  irrevocable,  to  employ  the  very  expres 
sions  of  his  excellency  the  president  of  the  King's  council.  The 
demands  contained  in  this  ultimatum  have  been  so  repeatedly  discussed, 
under  every  variety  of  form,  and  for  so  long  a  time,  between  the  Mexican 
ministry  and  the  French  legation,  that  the  former  might  certainly  be 
prepared  to  furnish  a  categorical  answer  in  forty-eight  hours.  Never 
theless,  the  undersigned  will  await  a  reply  until  the  15th  of  April.  If 
(which  God  forbid)  this  reply  shall  contain  a  negative  upon  any  one  of 
the  points  proposed  ;  if  even  its  language  shall  be  ambiguous  in  any  one 
particular  ;  if,  in  short,  it  shall  be  delayed  beyond  the  15th  of  April,  the 
undersigned  will  immediately  place  the  further  conduct  of  the  business 
in  the  hands  of  M.  Bazoche,  commander  of  the  naval  forces  of  his 
Majesty,  of  which  a  part  are  already  on  the  coast  of  Mexico,  and  this 
superior  officer  will  proceed  to  execute  the  orders  he  has  received.  If, 
on  the  contrary  (and  God  grant  such  may  be  the  case),  the  answer 
shall  be  entirely  affirmative  upon  every  point,  M.  Bazoche  will  then 
have  no  part  in  the  business,  excepting  only  in  case  the  promises  made 
by  the  Mexican  government  shall  not  be  completely  fulfilled  on  the  15th 
of  May.  In  any  case,  however,  in  which  this  officer  shall  be  required 
to  act,  from  the  moment  that  he  has  begun  to  carry  out  his  orders,  the 
execution  of  them  cannot  be  interrupted  or  suspended  without  the  entire 
and  perfect  fulfilment  of  every  requirement  of  this  ultimatum." 

Notwithstanding  the  distinct  and  peremptory  language  of  the  French 
minister,  dictating  the  most  precise  terms  and  conditions  on  which  alone 
hostilities  were  to  be  suspended,  and  prescribing  the  time  in  which  a 
categorical  answer  was  to  be  given,  delays  nevertheless  took  place. 
Mexican  diplomacy  exerted  all  its  power ;  the  most  conciliating  lan 
guage  was  employed  ;  promises  and  assurances  were  given  in  profusion  j 
and  it  was  not  until  the  following  November,  that  patience  and  forbear 
ance  on  the  one  side,  and  all  the  arts  of  dissimulation  and  artifice  on  the 
other,  were  exhausted,  that  France  put  in  execution  her  threats,  opened 
her  artillery  upon  the  castle  of  St.  Juan  de  Ulloa,  speedily  brought  the 
Mexicans  to  terms,  and  compelled  them  to  pay  a  further  sum  of  $200,- 
000,  to  remunerate  France  for  the  money  she  had  expended  in  the 
enforcement  of  her  right. 

This  history  has  been  given  somewhat  in  detail,  because  the  docu 
ment,  from  which  the  foregoing  extracts  have  been  made,  has  been  but 
rarely  seen,  and  is  little  known  in  the  United  States ;  because  nothing 
can  furnish  us  with  more  instructive  lessons  as  well,  as  to  the  character 
and  conduct  of  the  Mexican  people  and  government.  Nothing  can  more 
clearly  demonstrate  that  they  are  restrained  by  no  law,  human  or  divine, 
from  the  perpetration  of  any  outrages,  however  atrocious,  upon  those 


77 

come  within  their  power ;  that  their  barbarous  cruelty  in  inflicting 
wrong  can  be  equalled  only  by  their  mendacity  in  evading  the  conse 
quent  responsibility  ;  and  that  the  only  effective  mode  of  obtaining 
redress  for  past  injuries  and  preventing  the  infliction  of  similar  injuries  in 
future,  is  to  employ  towards  them  a  firm  and  decided  tone — peremptorily 
requiring  compensation  for  the  past  and  security  for  the  future,  and  pre 
pared  to  enforce  u.pon  them  an  observance  of  the  laws  of  nations  and  of 
humanity,  and  a  rigid  compliance  with  their  treaty  engagements. 

Little  doubt  can  be  entertained  that,  if  the  first  aberrations  from  these 
limits  had  been  firmly  resisted,  and  the  rights  of  others  rigidly  enforced, 
the  consequences  would  have  been  equally  beneficial  to  all  parties. 
Mexico,  taught  that  she  could  not  with  impunity  violate  the  rights  of 
others,  would  cautiously  have  abstained  from  the  perpetration  of  those 
enormities  which  must,  sooner  or  later,  be  visited  with  condign  punish 
ment  ;  and  adopted  a  policy  which  would  have  entitled  her  to  a  position 
among  the  civilized  nations  of  the  earth. 


No.    XIII. 

IN  the  exhibition  we  have  made  of  the  intercourse  between  France 
and  Mexico,  it  has  appeared  how  gross  and  violent  were  the  outrages 
perpetrated  by  the  latter  country  upon  the  other  ;  that  these  outrages 
were  committed,  not  by  a  powerful  nation,  which,  exulting  in  her  own 
strength,  substituted  her  will  for  the  law,  against  a  weak  and  feeble 
party,  but  by  the  one  which,  according  to  the  general  laws  of  human 
nature,  might  have  been  supposed  to  be  unwilling  to  rouse  the  resent 
ment  of  her  more  powerful  opponent,  because  unable  to  elude  the  con 
sequences  which  a  resort  to  the  ultima  ratio  of  nations  would  be  sure 
to  bring  upon  her  head — not  occasioned  by  feelings  goaded  by  previous 
causes  of  offence  left  rankling  in  her  bosom,  which,  blinded  by  passion, 
might  make  a  nation,  as  similar  causes  sometimes  do  an  individual,  blind 
to  results,  in  his  anxiety  to  punish  an  insult  or  an  outrage  of  which  he 
has  been  the  victim.  In  this  case  we  have  seen  Mexico,  the  weaker 
power,  gratuitously,  without  alleged  provocation  or  cause,  beginning 
and  carrying  on  the  wrong  against  a  nation  infinitely  her  superior  in 
physical  strength,  against  one  who  had  uniformly  exhibited  towards  her 
a  mild,  beneficent,  and  forbearing  course  of  policy — against  one  who 
had  never  done  her  wrong — who  had  acted  as  her  friend — who  was 
disposed  to  treat  her  with  kindness,  and  upon  a  footing  of  equality. 

Such  a  review  will,  therefore,  relieve  the  United  States  from  the 


78 

suspicion  of  having  afforded  to  Mexico  any  just,  or  even  plausible  pre 
text,  for  the  conduc  of  which  we  complain.  We  were  the  first  to  ac 
knowledge  her  independence,  and  her  right  to  assume  a  position  among 
the  nations  of  the  world.  We  extended  to  her  the  right  hand  of  ellow- 
ship.  Our  citizens  flocked  to  her  shores,  and  participated  with  her  own 
sons  in  the  perils  of  the  conflict  she  was  waging  for  her  national  exist 
ence.  We  not  only  did  not  require  at  her  hands  any  peculiar  commer 
cial  privileges  in  our  own  intercourse  with  her,  which  we  might  have 
exacted,  and  she  would,  at  the  time,  most  willingly  have  yielded  ;  but 
we  required  that  we  should  be  placed  only  on  the  footing  which  other 
nations  were  to  occupy.  Neither  the  government  nor  the  people  of 
the  United  States  ever  gave  her  cause,  either  of  offence  or  suspicion. 
Yet  such  as  has  been  portrayed,  has  been  the  treatment  we  have  ex 
perienced. 

The  governments  of  Europe  are  not  accustomed  as  we  are  to  spread 
before  the  world  the  minute  and  circumstantial  details  either  of  their 
foreign  or  their  domestic  policy.  But  for  the  publicity  given  by  the 
government  of  Mexico  to  her  controversies  with  France,  we  should 
have  remained  ignorant  of  the  circumstances  to  which  he  have  had  oc 
casion  to  revert.  It  is  the  same  with  reference  to  Great  Britain.  No 
public  rupture  has  occurred,  which  has  furnished  the  occasion  to  ex 
hibit  to  the  world  the  course  of  events  between  her  and  Mexico,  and 
therefore  nothing  relating  to  them  can  be  supplied  from  published  docu 
ments.  We  are,  however,  in-  possession  of  facts  which  are  susceptible 
of  being  sustained  by  authentic  proof,  which  exhibit,  in  the  conduct  of 
Mexico  towards  England,  some  cases  of  wrong ;  and  in  that  of  Great 
Britain,  the  prompt,  vigorous,  and  effective  measures  which  she  adopted 
to  obtain  redress  for  injuries  that  had  been  inflicted,  and  to  guard  against 
their  recurrence.  A  reference  to  a  few  of  these  facts  will  show  that 
Mexico  was  regardful  of  the  rights  of  foreigners  precisely  in  proportion 
to  the  probability  of  their  enforcement ;  that  her  only  standard  of  right 
was  the  disposition  and  the  ability  of  those  with  whom  she  acted,  to  re 
dress  wrong  ;  and  that  she,  by  a  timely  compliance  with  her  engage 
ments  and  responsibilities,  shunned  a  collision  with  England  which  was 
ready  to  break  upon  her  head. 

In  the  year  1832,  outrages  were  committed  in  Tabasco,  in  which 
British  subjects  and  American  citizens,  resident  in  Mexico,  were  equal 
sufferers.  They  were  subjected  to  heavy  pecuniary  losses,  and  to  seri 
ous  personal  injuries  and  insults.  In  the  year  1833,  the  British  minister 
obtained  full  redress  for  the  wrongs  sustained  by  his  countrymen  by  the 
energy,  with  which  he  prosecuted  his  demand  for  reparation.  In  1845, 
the  American  sufferers,  who  participated  in  these  same  losses,  are  still 


79 

without  remuneration.  This  is  one  of  the  numerous  instances  in  which 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  merchants,  captains  of  merchant  vessels, 
and  sailors,  were  subjected  to  the  most  cruel  abuses,  imprisonment,  one 
of  them  actually  murdered  ;  they  endured  these  evils  in  common  with 
other  foreigners.  Those  who  were  under  the  protection  of  England 
and  France  have  been  indemnified  by  Mexico  ;  but  our  citizens,  suffer 
without  redress,  and  those  who  perpetrate  these  outrages  upon  them 
escape  with  impunity.  The  narratives  of  Kendall  and  Gregg  show  these 
are  not  insulated  instances. 

One  other  instance  will  be  adverted  to,  in  which  the  British  govern 
ment,  by  the  decision  which  marked  its  course,  obtained  redress  for 
injuries  which  its  subjects  had  suffered,  without  being  compelled,  as 
France  was,  to  resort  to  arms  to  enforce  her  rights.  In  the  year  1833, 
General  Arista  then  commanding  a  force  in  opposition  to  the  existing 
authorities,  took  about  one  hundred  thousand  dollars  from  an  English 
mining  company,  which  he  applied  to  the  payment  of  the  troops  under 
his  command.  The  company  called  upon  the  government  to  indemnify 
it  for  this  outrage.  The  demand  was  refused,  on  the  ground  that  the 
nation  could  not  justly  be  held  responsible  for  the  acts  of  those,  who 
were  not  only  acting  without  its  authority,  but  in  defiance  of  the  con 
stitutional  powers  of  the  country.  Being,  however,  urged  by  the  British 
minister  to  liquidate  this  claim — and  this  was  done  simultaneously  with 
the  demand  by  an  American  citizen  who  had  suffered  a  similar  wrong 
— the  Mexican  Secretary  of  Foreign  Affairs,  in  his  annual  report  to 
Congress,  early  in  the  year  1835,  presented  to  the  legislative  depart 
ment,  in  his  annual  report,  the  case  of  the  English  mining  company. 
He  admitted  the  facts  as  they  have  been  stated ;  but  insisted  upon  the 
injustice  of  holding  Mexico  accountable  for  an  outrage  committed  by  a 
body  of  men  who  were  in  arms  to  overturn  the  government,  and  upon 
the  impolicy  of  establishing  a  precedent  in  such  cases  ;  that  there  were 
many  Mexicans  who  had  suffered  losses  under  similar  circumstances, 
who  would,  with  great  propriety,  regard  the  allowance  and  payment  to 
foreigners  of  such  a  claim  as  furnished  an  example  which  ought  to  be 
followed  in  reference  to  them  ;  and  if  it  were  followed  out,  the  means 
of  the  treasury  would  be  insufficient  to  meet  the  demands  made  upon  it. 
He  also  suggested  that  the  case  of  foreigners  could  not  favorably  be  dis 
tinguished  from  that  of  their  own  people  ;  that  during  the  commotions 
which  had  existed  in  Mexico,  the  condition  of  foreigners  was  much 
better  than  that  of  the  natives — that  they  had  the  opportunity  of  realiz 
ing  extraordinary  profits  during  such  periods  of  violence  and  terror,  and 
that  consequently  they  were  better  able  to  bear  the  accidental  losses  to 
which  they  might  be  subjected,  and  had  the  less  claim  for  compensa- 


80 

tion  for  these  incidental  disadvantages.  He  further  represented  that 
there  were  numerous  cases  of  claims  of  a  similar  character,  and  that  the 
prompt  action  of  the  Legislature  upon  them  was  requisite,  in  order  to 
enable  the  Executive  to  return  promptly  an  answer  to  the  parties  in 
terested. 

The  British  minister,  however,  did  not  think  it  expedient  to  await 
the  dilatory  action  of  the  Mexican  Congress  upon  this  subject ;  which 
long  experience  had  taught  him  would  only  involve  delay.  He  trans 
mitted  a  copy  of  this  official  communication  to  his  government,  with  a 
full  statement  of  the  circumstances  of  the  case  in  which  his  demand 
had  originated.  By  the  next  packet,  and  before  Congress  had  moved  in 
the  matter,  he  received  instructions  to  apprise  the  Mexican  authorities, 
that  full  remuneration  must  be  made  to  the  mining  company  within  a 
limited  and  short  period,  and  in  the  event  of  non-compliance  with  this 
demand,  he  was  instructed  to  inform  the  admiral  on  the  Jamaica  sta 
tion  of  the  fact,  who  had  been  instructed  to  act  in  that  case  and  em 
powered  to  employ  force  in  compelling  the  adjustment.  These  instruc 
tions  were  communicated  to  the  Mexican  government,  and  within  a  few 
months  the  affair  was  arranged  to  the  entire  satisfaction  of  the  English 
claimants. 


No.  XIV. 

WE  have  now  rapidly  traced  the  conduct  of  Mexico  to  her  relations 
with  the  various  nations  with  whom  she  has  had  intercourse,  during  the 
comparatively  brief  period  of  less  than  a  quarter  of  a  century,  which 
has  elapsed  since  she  began  her  career  as  a  colony  of  Spain,  asserting 
her  independence  of  the  mother-country  and  struggling  to  maintain  the 
position  which  she  had  assumed.  This  review  of  her  conduct  is  also 
a  delineation  of  her  character.  Wholly  ignorant  of  the  art  of  govern 
ment,  her  people,  suddenly  liberated  from  the  shackles  of  astern  despo 
tism  to  which  they  had  long  been  inured,  found  themselves  unrestrained 
in  the  exercise  of  their  newly  acquired  freedom.  No  longer  held  in 
fetters  by  the  arbitrary  hand  of  power,  there  was  no  moral  force  substi 
tuted  in  its  stead,  to  which  they  even  professed  allegiance.  Equally  ig 
norant,  as  regards  the  faculties  of  their  minds  and  their  moral  sense,  they 
felt  themselves  alike  incapable  of  guiding  their  conduct  by  the  light  of 
reason,  and  indifferent  to  the  dictates  of  virtue.  They  madly,  recklessly 
plunged  from  one  scene  of  civil  turmoil  into  anoher;  wreaked  their 


Si 

vengeance  upon  all  who  fell  under  their  power ;  preferred  the  precarious 
support  of  pillage  and  rapine  to  the  plodding  routine  of  industry  and  in 
tegrity  ;  and,  while  they  showed  themselves  regardless  of  the  ties  of 
affinity  and  kindred,  they  looked  with  especial  hatred  and  jealousy  upon 
all  who  bore  the  appearance  and  exhibited  the  character  of  strangers. 

Such  indications  of  national  character  were  so  anomalous,  so  at  vari 
ance  with  everything  to  which  civilized  and  Christian  men  had  been  ac 
customed,  that  the  accounts  of  their  proceedings  were  regarded  with 
incredulity.  We  could  not  believe  the  accounts  that  were,  from  day  to 
day,  transmitted  from  this  ill-fated  country.  It  could  not  be  credited 
that  those  who  had  been  invited  to  their  shores  in  the  hour  of  peril,  who 
had  participated  with  them  in  their  dangers,'  who  were  introducing 
among  them  habits  of  industry,  and  exhibiting  before  their  eyes  the 
beautiful  results  of  laborious  honesty,  who  were  engaged  in  the  develop 
ment  of  their  abundant  resources,  and  diffusing  around  them  the  bless 
ings  of  tranquil  but  busy  activity,  would  or  could,  by  these  means,  rouse 
their  hatred,  and  bring  down  upon  thems^ves  the  dreadful  calamities 
which  they  were  made  to  suffer. 

All  foreigners  shared  alike  in  these  dreadful  calamities.  Murders  and 
assassinations,  plunder  and  pillage,  alike  awaited  them  ;  and  a  fearful 
catalogue  of  atrocities  was  accumulated,  such  as  had  never  before  dis 
graced  a  nation  professing  to  be  governed  by  the  Christian  religion,  or 
recognizing  the  obligations  of  national  law. 

With  all  this,  Mexico  possesses  the  constituents  of  great  national 
power  and  greatness.  Her  climate  is  admirable,  her  mineral  resources 
immense,  and  her  vegetable  productions  calculated  to  be  at  once  the 
source  of  wealth  to  herself  and  of  comfort  to  tbe  residue  of  the  world. 

The  other  nations  of  the  earth  must  either  exclude  her  from  the  rank 
which  she  claims  among  them,  or  must  compel  her  to  observe  those  laws 
of  the  government  to  which  they  voluntarily  an  1  cheerfully  submit. 
We  have  seen  that,  by  a  timely  resort  to  those  measures  of  coercion 
which  the  circumstances  of  the  case  rendered  necessary,  France  and 
England  have  compelled  her  to  redress  the  wrongs  which  she  had  per 
petrated,  and  to  obey  that  law  which  she  had  violated.  Were  this  course 
universally  adopted,  Mexico  herself  would  sjrow  r  cher  and  happier,  as 
well  as  bett  >r. 

In  determining  upon  thr^  cou-se  which,  under  such  circumstances, 
ought  to  be  pursued  towards  such  a  nation,  the  United  States,  while 
exhibiting  that  firmness  and  decision  which  become  her  character  and 
position,  is  also  under  hig  >.  obligations  to  abstain  from  every  measure 
which  bears  the  impress  o  vindictiveness  or  exasperation.  Our  rights 
are  clear  and  beyond  controversy  ;  they  should  be  distinctly  asserted  and 
6 


82 

energetically  vindicated  ;  but  our  strength  and  power  enable  us  to  pur 
sue  them  with  equal  dignity  of  manner  and  firmness  of  purpose. 

It  has  been  shown,  that  the  claims  of  the  United  States  upon  the  gov 
ernment  of  Mexico,  as  well  for  outrages  upon  the  lives,  the  persons  and 
the  property  of  our  citizens,  as  for  indignities,  insults  and  injuries  per 
petrated  upon  our  government,  our  flag  and  our  public  functionaries, 
have  gradually  accumulated  in  number  as  in  amount.  Every  new  arri 
val  from  Mexico  brings  new  intelligence  of  some  fresh  wrong;  and 
while  no  reparation  is  made  for  the  past,  no  security  is  offered  for  the 
future.  Years  have  elapsed  since  the  Executive  and  Congress  concur 
red  in  the  public  declaration,  that  we  should  be  justified  before  the  world 
in  resorting  to  arms  to  redress  and  punish  these  atrocities.  We  have 
seen  that  France  did  adopt  this  system  of  operations  to  redress  grievan 
ces,  not  equal  to  the  tithe  of  what  we  had  suffered  ;  and  that  England 
was  only  prevented,  under  infinitely  less  provocation,  from  appealing  to 
force,  by  the  prompt  and  satisfactory  adjustment  of  her  demands.  We 
have  seen  that  Mexico,  a^er  having  recognized  the  validity  of  our 
claims,  and  given  the  most  solemn  assurances  that  they  should  be  liqui 
dated  and  settled,  has  suddenly  closed  all  diplomatic  intercourse  between 
the  twro  governments ;  withdrawn  her  own  minister  from  the  United 
States,  and  declined  further  communication  with  our  representative. 
This  course  has  been  adopted  in  consequence  of  an  alleged  wrong  com 
mitted  upon  her  honor  and  her  rights  by  the  action  of  this  country  upon 
Texas.  This  wrong  she  chooses  to  regard  as  so  palpable  and  so  3  \on- 
strous,  that  she  will  not  make  it  the  subject  of  discussion  or  negotiation. 
She  considers  it  as  admitting  neither  of  palliation,  compromise,  nor  ar 
rangement.  We  must  retrace  our  steps,  undo  what  has  been  done,  annul 
our  legislative  acts  and  our  executive  measures,  as  preliminary  condi 
tions  to  the  resumption  of  friendly  intercourse  between  them  and  us. 

It  is  needless  to  say  that  such  demands  are  as  preposterously  absurd, 
as  they  are  insulting  to  the  government  of  the  United  States.  What 
we  have  done,  we  have  done  deliberately  and  advisedly.  We  have  done 
it  with  a  full  persuasion  and  entire  conviction  that  we  have  violated  no 
rule  of  justice,  no  provision  of  public  law,  and  done  no  wrong  to  Mexi 
co.  We  have  acquired  rights  and  incurred  responsibilities  which  we 
cannot  abandon,  and  will  not  shrink  from. 

At  the  same  time,  the  United  States  are  willing  and  desirous  to  make 
this  controverted  subject  a  matter  of  friendly  discussion,  and  fair  and 
liberal  adjustment.  Mexico  has  declined  this  proffer,  and  assumes  a 
ground  which  can  rarely  find  justification  in  that  code  which  governs 
the  intercourse  among  nations.  She  asserts  that  her  rights  are  too  plain 


83 

to  admit  of  question,  or  to  allow  of  doubt ;  and,  consequently,  that  our 
acts  are  as  palpably  and  incontrovertibly  wrong  and  indefensible.  The 
government  of  the  United  States  entertain  opinions  exactly  the  opposite  ; 
and  no  attitude  can  be  assumed  by  one  nation  towards  another  more  offen 
sive  and  insulting,  than  that  which  imputes  to  the  other  the  deliberate 
perpertration  of  palpable  wrong,  and  the  covering  of  the  injurious  act 
under  the  mantle  of  wilful  falsehood.  Mexico  is  bound  to  discuss  this 
question  ;  and,  while  insisting  upon  her  own  views,  to  receive,  examine, 
and  deliberate  upon  those  which  we  are  prepared  to  present.  In  refus 
ing  this,  she  herself  commits  an  outrage. 

One  thing  is  at  least  clear,  that  whichever  party  may  ultimately  be 
ascertained  to  be  in  the  wrong  in  this  matter,  upon  no  principle  of  pub 
lic  law  can  this  subject  furnish  a  justification  for  her  refusal  or  neglect 
to  repair  the  injuries  she  has  herself  inflicted  upon  us.  She  has  solemnly 
recognized  our  rights  as  to  these  causes  of  complaint ;  she  has  solemnly 
stipulated  to  compensate  our  citizens  for  them  ;  she  has  incurred  obliga 
tions  to  the  American  government ;  conferred  upon  it  an  unquestioned 
right,  and  imposed  upon  it  the  corresponding  obligation  to  enforce  these 
rights  if  they  shall  be  longer  disregarded  or  neglected.  These  are  re 
sponsibilities  from  which  neither  nation  can  now  honorably  disengage 
itself. 

If  it  be  asked,  then,  what  course  ought  the  government  of  the  United 
S^tes  to  adopt  under  such  circumstances,  the  answer  is  obvious.  But 
one  course  is  left  open,  unless  the  claims  upon  Mexico  are  abandoned, 
and,  either  in  direct  terms  or  by  necessary  implication,  it  be  conceded  to 
her  that  the  treaties  between  the  two  powers  are  virtually  abrogated, 
the  compacts  between  them  annulled,  and  the  claims  cancelled  by  the 
admitted  wrong  inflicted  upon  her  by  our  arrangements  with  Texas. 
Rejecting  this  as  equally  dishonorable  and  false,  but  one  alternative 
remains. 

A  distinct,  and  peremptory,  and  final  demand  should  be  at  once  made 
upon  Mexico  to  fulfil  her  engagements,  to  pay  the  arrears  of  the  indem 
nity  which  has  already  been  adjusted,  and  without  further  delay  to  pro 
vide  for  the  settlement  of  the  outstanding  demands  upon  her.  This 
should  be  insisted  upon  as  a  sine  qua  non,  as  an  indispensable  preliminary 
to  the  discussion  of  any  new  questions.  If  acceded  to,  this  cause 
of  controversy  may  be  readily  adjusted,  and  all  the  remaining  pre 
tensions  of  either  party  be  considered  and  settled  upon  fair  and 
liberal  terms.  If,  however,  it  shall  be  refused  or  declined,  it  will 
become  the  duty,  as  it  is  the  clear  right,  of  the  United  States,  either  to 
follow  the  precedents  established  by  France  and  England,  of  taking  the 


84 

representations  of  the  injured  parties  as  furnishing  the  amount  of  the  re 
muneration  to  which  they  are  entitled,  or  to  create  a  home  commission, 
empowered  to  examine  each  separate  case — to  adjudicate  upon  it  in  ac 
cordance  with  the  same  principles  which  we  have  asserted  and  admitted 
as  regards  Mexico  herself :  the  amount  thus  ascertained,  to  be  regarded 
as  finally  and  definitely  fixed,  and  Mexico  required,  and,  if  necessary 
enforced  to  pay  it. 


MEXICO  AGAINST  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


No.  I. 

IT  seems  that  the  Mexican  government  has  issued  a  paper,  in  the 
nature  of  a  manifesto  against  the  government  of  the  United  States, 
which  is  couched  in  the  customary  language  of  denunciation  employed 
by  the  functionaries  of  that  nation,  but  without  indicating  very  precisely 
what  ulterior  measures  are  contemplated.  There  is,  however,  one  as 
sertion  thus  officially  promulgated,  which  we  are  not  sorry  to  see,  be 
cause  it  represents  in  a,  tangible  form,  and  under  the  express  sanction  of 
the  Mexican  Executive,  what  has  before  been  said  from  the  same  source 
on  more  than  one  occasion,  and  which  has  unfortunately  been  received 
with  some  degree  of  credit  by  others  than  Mexicans.  It  is  positively 
averred  by  that  government,  that,  "  on  the  part  of  this  Republic  (Mexi 
co),  the  existing  treaties  between  it  and  those  (the  United)  States,  were 
respected  scrupulously  and  legally." 

For  a  complete  and  triumphant  refutation  of  this  mendacious  asser 
tion,  it  would  be  a  sufficient  answer  to  advert  to  the  terms  of  the  treaty, 
signed  on  the  llth  April,  1839,  by  the  representatives  of  the  two  powers, 
and  the  proceedings  of  the  board  of  commissioners  appointed  under  it. 
That  convention  provided  for  the  adjustment  of  the  claims  of  citizens 
of  the  United  States  against  Mexico,  for  injuries  perpetrated  by  the 
latter  upon  the  former.  Those  claims  were  founded  upon  violations  of 
treaty  obligations. 

The  third  article  of  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Mexico, 
of  April  5,  1831,  provides  that  "  the  citizens  of  the  two  countries  re 
spectively  shall  have  liberty  freely  and  securely  to  come  with  their 
vessels  and  cargoes  to  all  such  places,  ports,  and  rivers  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  and  of  the  united  Mexican  States,  to  which  other 
foreigners  are  permitted  to  come,  and  to  remain  and  reside  in  any  part 
of  the  said  territories  respectively  ;  *  and  generally  the  mer 

chants  and  traders  of  each  nation  shall  enjoy  the  most  complete  protec 
tion  and  security  for  their  commerce."  Article  14th  :  "  Both  the  con 
tracting  parties  promise  and  engage  to  give  their  special  protection  to 


86 

the  citizens  of  each  other  who  may  be  in  their  territories,"  &c.  Article 
15th :  "  The  citizens  of  the  United  States  of  America,  residing  in  the 

/  O 

united  Mexican  States,  shall  enjoy  in  their  houses,  persons,  and  pro 
perty,  the  protection  of  the  government,  with  the  more  perfect  security 
and  liberty  of  conscience."  The  Spanish  version  of  this  article  is  some 
what  different ;  the  expression  of  conscience  not  appearing  in  it :  "  Go- 
zaran  en  sus  casas,  personas,  y  propriedades,  de  la  proteccion  de  la  go- 
bierno,  y  continuando  en  la  posesion  en  que  estan." 

A  large  majority  of  the  cases  presented  before  the  board  were  for 
alleged  violations  of  these  treaty  provisions.  The  memorials  and  proofs 
filed,  and  which  are  now  in  the  Department  of  State,  amply  confirm 
this  statement.  All  merely  national  outrages  were  excluded  from  the 
operation  of  this  convention,  and  never  were  lain  before  the  board. 

We  have  now  before  us  the  report  of  the  proceedings  of  that  board. 
More  than  nine-tenths  of  the  claims,  as  has  been  said,  for  violations  of 
rights  secured  and  guarantied  by  treaty  ;  and  several  of  these  allowed 
as  such  by  the  Mexican  commissioners,  and  many  more  decided  by 
the  umpire  on  this  single  ground.  The  claims  thus  exhibited  exceeded 
ten  millions  of  dollars.  Here,  then,  is  a  judicial  decision,  by  a  board 
composed  one  half  of  Americans  and  the  other  half  Mexicans,  that  the 
assertion  now  made  is  utterly  destitute  of  truth. 

This  instance  of  mendacity  is  not  unexampled  in  the  history  of  this 
people.  The  report  of  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  of  July  7,  1S38,  exhibits  another  memorable  one. 
The  American  Secretary  had  presented  a  list  of  fifty-seven  distinct  cases 
of  claim  upon  Mexico  for  illegal  outrages.  Inquiry  into  these  cases, 
and  redress  of  the  injuries  complained  of,  were  profusely  promised. 
After  great  and  unexplained  delays,  answers  were  returned  in  reference 
to  only  four  ;  and,  in  the  interim,  the  Mexican  President  promulgates  a 
decree,  in  which  it  is  positively  intimated — 1st,  That  Mexico  had  offered 
to  submit  the  claims  against  her  to  the  decision  of  a  friendly  power  ; 
2d,  That,  in  case  the  government  of  the  United  States  should  deny  satis 
faction  to  Mexico,  or  delay  it,  or  continue  the  open  aggressions  already 
committed,  then  that  Mexico  should  close  her  ports  to  our  trade,  with 
a  menance  of  even  harsher  measures.  The  committee  show  it  in  the  re 
port  that  no  such  offer  of  arbitrament  had  ever  been  made,  and  that  no 
one  case  had  ever  been  complained  of  in  which  any' aggression  had  been 
committed  by  the  United  States  against  Mexico,  nor  any  one  instance  in 
which  satisfaction  had  been  required  for  any  pretended  wrong.  This 
paper  was  therefore  regarded  as  an  attempt  by  the  Executive  of  Mexico 
to  throw  embarrassments  in  the  way  of  an  adjustment  of  our  demands, 
by  a  false  effort  to  induce  the  Legislature  of  that  country  to  regard  Mex- 


87 


ico  as  the  only  aggrieved  party.     The  duplicity  and  mendacity  of  the 
Mexican  Executive  are  fully  developed  in  the  document  referred  to 

Proof  equally  conclusive  exists  in  abundance,  which  we  may  hereafter 
deem  it  proper  to  adduce. 


No.  II. 

ON  the  part  of  Mexico,  her  treaties  with  the  United  States  were  re 
spected  scrupulously.  So  asserts  the  Mexican  Executive,  in  a  public 
proclamation,  embodying  certain  resolutions  of  the  Mexican  Congress. 

Every  American  is  interested  in  ascertaining  how  far  this  language  is 
warranted  by  truth.  Since  the  date  of  the  first  of  those  treaties,  every 
President,  who  has  had  occasion  to  allude  to  the  subject — and  all  have, 
except  Mr.  Polk,  to  whom  the  opportunity  has  not  yet  been  presented, 
but  who  will,  ere  long,  doubtless,  as  distinctly  declare  his  views — has 
averred,  in  his  communications  to  Congress,  that,  from  the  period  when 
Mexico  assumed  her  position  as  an  independent  nation,  instances  were 
of  almost  daily  occurrence,  in  which  the  laws  of  nations  were  violated 
by  that  power,  to  the  injury  of  Americn  citizens,  and  that,  since  treaties 
have  been  formed  between  the  two  governments,  cases  of  the  infraction 
of  those  treaties  have  been  as  frequent  and  as  numerous.  This  was 
the  deliberate  language  of  General  Jackson,  Mr.  Van  Buren,  and  Mr. 
Tyler.  It  has  been  as  formally  charged  by  every  Secretary  of  State 
during  the  last  sixteen  years ;  for  there  has  been  no  variation  in  the 
character  of  those  occurrences.  Mr.  Livingston  and  Mr.  McLane,  Mr. 
Forsyth,  and  Mr.  Webster,  Mr.  Upshur  and  Mr.  Calhoun,  have  each 
preferred  the  same  high  accusation.  Nor  has  this  been  done,  in  imita 
tion  of  the  Mexican  example,  in  documents  addressed  merely  to  our 
own  people,  and  prepared  only  for  home  consumption,  while  a  different 
language  has  been  held  to  Mexico  herself. 

Mexico  has  been  told  to  her  face,  by  every  minister  who  has  repre 
sented  the  United-States  at  that  court,  that  such  has  been  her  course  of 
conduct.  Mr.  Butler,  who  negotiated  the  treaty  of  1831,  from  the  mo 
ment  of  its  execution,  constantly  and  indignantly  complains  of 'its  daily 
violation.  Mr.  Ellis,  General  Thompson,  and  Mr.  Shannon,  make  the 
same  representations.  The  Committees  of  Foreign  Relations,  in  the 
reports  of  Mr.  Buchanan  and  Mr.  Rives  of  the  Senate,  and  General 
Howard  and  Mr.  Gushing  of  the  House,  all  concur  in  the  same  opinions. 
Such  complaints,  presented  in  individual  cases,  fortified  by  evidence, 
load  the  shelves  of  the  Department  of  State.  Several  of  them  have  un- 


88 

dergone  judicial — or  rather  what  would,  but  for  a  breach  of  faith  on  the 
part  of  Mexico,  have  been  a  purely  judicial — investigation  ;  and  Judges 
Rowan,  Marcy,  and  Breckenridge,  have  pronounced  their  judgments, 
that  Mexico  has  repeatedly  violated  treaty  stipulations,  and  thus  inflict 
ed  an  immense  amount  of  injury  upon  citizens  of  the  United  States. 
Over  and  over  again  have  such  cases  been  admitted  by  the  Mexican 
authorities  j  and  they  have  recognized  the  truth  of  these  accusations, 
in  making  a  convention  to  provide  for  their  adjustment,  in  joining  in  the 
decisions  of  the  board  of  commissioners,  and  (though  certainly  to  a  very 
limited  extent),  paying  portions  of  those  awards. 

Yet,  on  some  occasions,  of  which  we  have  the  evidence,  the  govern 
ment  of  Mexico  has  unblushingly  denied  the  truth  of  these  allegations  ; 
and,  doubtless,  in  other  instances,  has  attempted  to  deceive  the  people 
by  representations  that  all  these  claims  of  American  citizens  were  fabri 
cated  and  fraudulent.  It  is  the  duty  of  every  American  citizen  to  as 
certain  upon  which  side  the  truth  lies.  Have  the  distinguished  men, 
whose  names  we  have  cited,  been  misled  by  the  false  representations  of 
those  who  profess  to  have  been  injured  ?  or  have  they  wantonly,  wick 
edly,  and  knowingly  endeavored  to  deceive  this  country,  and,  on  false 
pretence,  to  bring  out  a  collision  between  the  two  nations  ? 

Our  government  and  our  people  are  equally  interested  in  this  investi 
gation.  The  former  are  charged  with  deliberate  falsification.  The  issue 
must  be  met ;  and  if  this  accusation  is  disproved,  the  honor  of  the  coun 
try  imperatively  demands  that  the  party  who  has  made  it,  should  be 
compelled  10  acknowledge  the  wrongs  she  has  perpetrated,  and  compen 
sate  the  injuries  she  has  inflicted.  The  issue  has  been  definitely  made 
up.  Mexico  no  longer  seeks  to  exonerate  herself  from  paying  a  just 
indemnity  to  our  citizens,  because  the  disorganized  state  of  her  affairs 
prevented  the  exercise  of  her  national  arm  in  furnishing  that  protection 
to  American  citizens  which  she  was  bound  to  provide ;  or  because  her 
exhausted  treasury  precludes  the  possibility  of  meeting  this  heavy  de 
mand.  No :  she  boldly  and  peremptorily  avers  that  she  has  scrupulous 
ly  adh'ered  to  her  treaty  engagements  ; — that  she  has  done  no  act  which 
those  treaties  required  her  to  omit,  and  has  left  undone  nothing  she  was 
bound  to  do.  She  has  declared,  through  the  resolution  of  her  Con 
gress,  sanctioned  and  ratified  by  her  Executive,  that  all  the  charges 
which  have  been  preferred  against  her,  of  want  of  good  faith,  and  viola 
tion  of  treaty  obligations,  are  false.  It  need  hardly  be  asked,  whether 
this  government,  which  has  preferred  the  charge,  will  remain  satisfied 
with  such  a  reply  ;  whether  it  will  rest  contented  under  this  retort ; 
whether  the  personal  integrity  of  our  statesmen — which,  happily,  under 
our  institutions,  and  with  the  tone  of  morals  which  pervades  this  land, 


89 

is,  to  so  great  an  extent,  identified  with  their  public  acts  and  language- 
is  to  be  sustained  or  abandoned.  For  our  part,  we  rejoice  that  the  issue 
has  thus  been  tendered  by  Mexico  ;  and  we  should  be  recreant  to  every 
sense  of  honor  and  of  right,  if  we  withheld  the  expression  of  our 
earnest  wish  that  the  gauntlet,  thus  thrown  down,  may  be  promptly 
taken  up. 

Neither  party,  in  this  predicament,  can,  with  honor  to  itself,  decline  or 
evade  this  appeal.  Assailed  as  we  now  are,  in  a  distinct,  official,  and 
most  solemn  form,  it  becomes  incumbent  upon  the  American  nation  to 
demand  and  insist  upon  it,  that  Mexico  shall  at  once  unite  in  the  appro 
priate  means  of  determining  these  high  matters  in  controversy.  A  con 
vention  is  before  her,  and  has  been  in  her  hands  for  nearly  eighteen 
months,  providing  these  means.  It  creates  a  judicial  tribunal,  clothed 
with  all  necessary  and  suitable  powers  to  examine  and  decide  upon  this 
question.  Let  Mexico  be  required  to  meet  us  upon  this  arena,  to  meet 
our  allegations,  and  to  meet  our  proofs.  If  she  honestly  believes  what 
she  has  said,  there  will  be  no  evasion,  no  prevarication,  no  delay.  If 
she  declines,  let  our  government  cause  the  investigation  to  be  conducted 
among  ourselves,  by  men  of  high  character  for  integrity  and  talent ;  and 
let  the  evidence  laid  before  them,  and  their  judgments  upon  that  testi 
mony,  furnish  our  justification  to  the  nation  and  to  the  world  for  what 
the  government  has  asserted. 


No.  III. 

IN  our  last  communication,  it  was  stated  that  efforts  had  been 
more  than  once  made  by  the  Mexican  government  to  mislead  the 
popular  mind  of  that  nation  by  false  representations  in  reference  to  the 
United  States,  and  especially  on  the  subject  of  claims  of  our  citizens. 
We  have  the  strongest  reasons  for  believing,  that  it  has  been  the  sys 
tematic  policy  of  that  government  to  excite  the  most  embittered  feelings 
of  resentment  and  hatred  against  the  United  States,  her  institutions,  and 
her  people.  The  motives  for  this  policy  are  obvious  to  all  who  are 
familiar  with  the  history  of  that  degraded  nation,  and  wrho  are  aware  of 
the  character  of  the  men  who  have,  from  time  to  time,  swayed  her  des 
tinies — of  the  means  by  which  political  ascendency  is  there  at^ined,  and 
the  precarious  tenure  by  which  it  is  held.  The  object  for  which  office 
is  sought,  is  almost  exclusively  personal  and  sordid  ;  the  means  by 
which  it  is  attained,  as  universally  base  and  unprincipled.  The  means 
of  continuing  in  power  are  the  excitement  of  an  anticipation  of  a  for- 


90 

eign  war,  which  furnishes  a  pretext  for  augmenting  their  army  and 
increasing  the  revenue,  which  are  afterwards  employed — the  first  to 
maintain  their  ascendency,  the  other  to  swell  their  private  fortunes. 
Such  is  a  true  synopsis  of  Mexican  history. 

Reference  has  already  been  made  to  one  instance  of  this  duplicity, 
which  was  brought  to  notice  and  exposed  by  General  Howard,  of 
Maryland,  in  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  the 
House  of  Representatives,  in  July,  1838.  Another  will  now  be  adduced. 

The  situation  of  the  public  press  in  Mexico  is  materially  different  from 
what  we  are  accustomed  to.  While  no  newspaper  is  permitted  to  ex 
press  opinions  or  doctrines  unpalatable  to  the  powers  that  be,  the  gov 
ernment  journal  is  the  authentic  expositor  of  the  views  of  the  govern 
ment,  and  indicates  to  the  other  presses,  throughout  the  nation,  the  sen 
timents  and  language  which  will  be  allowed  to  go  forth  to  the  people. 
Shortly  after  one  of  President  Jackson's  messages  to  Congress,  in  which 
Mexican  affairs  were  adverted  to  in  very  distinct  and  appropriate  terms, 
the  "  Diario  del  Gobierno^  the  official  paper,  published  an  article,  from 
which  we  give  the  following  extract : 

a  We  do  not  understand  what  the  President  of  the  United  States 
means  by  all  this  about  retributions  and  injuries.  Such  expressions  in 
volve  a  double  sense,  and  a  future  intention.  In  Mexico  and  Central 
America,  we  know  that  we  owe  nothing  to  the  North  Americans.  General 
Jackson  may  pretend  that  the  subjects  of  his  nation  should  be  indemni 
fied  for  the  smuggled  articles  which  have  been  taken  from  them,  and  de 
clared  to  be  legally  forfeited.  If  the  Americans  were  not  so  much  given 
to  smuggling,  and  if  they  did  not  so  far  abuse  the  consideration  with 
which  they  are  regarded,  there  would  be  no  complaints  of  any  sort;  and 
those  which,  under  any  circumstances,  are  made,  are  unjust,  and  only  a 
pretext  for  not  allowing  us  to  be  at  peace,  which  has  been  the  constant 
endeavor  of  our  sympathizing  friends  and  neighbors." 

In  another  paper,  of  about  the  same  date,  after  stating  that  the  Amer 
icans,  "  when  they  meet  one  of  our  merchant-vessels  at  sea,  they  hoist 
the  flag  of  the  Texian  rebels  ;  and,  as  such,  take  the  vessel,  and  give  it, 
or  sell  it,  to  the  colonists,  after  having  robbed  her,  and  perhaps  murdered 
all  the  persons  on  board,"  thus  proceeds  :  "  We  know  these  American 
sea-faring  men  who  trade  with  us,  and  we  are  aware  that  the  whole 
nation,  particularly  New  Orleans,  is  the  haunt  of  all  the  villians  in  the 
world." 

It  was  surely  not  without  reason  that  the  American  minister,  in  trans 
mitting  these  manifestations  of  Mexican  sincerity  to  his  government, 
felt  himself  "  compelled  to  add,  that  all  my  correspondence  with  the 
Department  of  State,  verbal  and  written,  for  the  last  three  years,  has 


91 

served  to  convince  me  of  the  necessity  of  our  government  adopting 
some  decisive  measure  for  convincing  the  Mexican  government,  not  only 
that  they  must  give  ample  satisfaction  for  the  wrongs  we  have  already 
suffered  at  their  hands,  but  that  our  rights  shall,  in  future,  be  respected. 
Without  some  step  of  this  character,  we  shall  go  on  for  years  without 
number,  accumulating  claims  against  Mexico,  that  they  never  will,  and 
never  mean  to  satisfy,  so  long  as  it  can  be  avoided.  Our  citizens  will 
be  plundered  whenever  the  wants  of  the  government,  or  the  cupidity  of 
some  of  its  officers,  may  tempt  them  to  commit  the  act.  And,  although 
we  have  promises  of  indemnity  whenever  the  state  of  their  treasury  will 
permit  them  to  do  so,  they,  nevertheless,  design  by  these  promises 
nothing  more  than  a  mere  postponement — a  delay — to  gain  time  for 
adding  to  the  amount  of  our  demands  by  new  plundering" — a  prophecy 
most  signally  verified. 

We  have  been  informed  from  an  authentic  source,  that  when  pro 
vision  was  to  be  made  for  meeting  the  payment  of  the  indemnities 
awarded  under  the  convention  of  1839,  the  government  of  Mexico  not 
only  resorted  to  the  most  odious  and  oppressive  mode  in  which  money 
could  be  raised — an  arbitrary  assessment  and  compulsory  contribution — 
but  accompanied  this  measure  with  the  most  violent  invectives  against 
the  nation  that  had  imposed  upon  them,  by  its  frauds,  the  necessity  for 
their  exacting  money  from  the  impoverished  people  of  Mexico  ;  thus 
causing  them  to  execrate  the  United  States  at  the  payment  of  every 
rial ;  and  including  in  this  denunciation  the  Prussian  minister,  who,  in 
his  capacity  of  umpire,  had  participated  in  the  act. 

By  such  means  have  the  people  of  Mexico  been  taught,  by  their 
rulers,  to  entertain  towards  this  country  the  most  embittered  hatred. 
They  regard  us  not  only  as  unprincipled  dastards  (for  this  would  only 
offend  them  as  an  interference  with  their  own  exclusive  monopoly),  but 
as  exerting  all  our  energies  to  injure,  molest,  and  harass  them. 

They  have  now,  for  the  first  time,  in  a  plain  and  distinct  manner, 
counting  from  the  experience  of  the  past  upon  our  inexhaustable  and 
all-enduring  forbearance,  placed  us  in  an  attitude  in  which  silence  and 
non-action  will  be  tantamount  to  an  acknowledgement  that  we  justly 
merit  all  they  impute  to  us. 


No.  IV. 

IT  may  perhaps  be  suggested,  that  in  the  remarks  already  made  upon 
the  issue  tendered  by  Mexico  to  the  United  States — the  one  asserting 


92 

the  scrupulous  fidelity  with  which  she  has  fulfilled  her  treaty  obligations  ; 
the  other  averring  an  habitual  disregard  of  those  engagements — reference 
has  only  been  made  to  the  general  language  of  the  public  functionaries 
of  the  two  governments,  which,  being  utterly  at  variance  with  each 
other,  the  community  and  the  world  are  unable  to  decide  to  which  of 
them  credit  should  be  given.  The  weight  of  names  and  of  authority,  if 
the  individuals  cited  spoke  of  facts  coming  immediately  under  their  own 
view,  would  undoubtedly  preponderate  in  favor  of  the  American  side 
of  the  question.  It  may,  however,  be  asked — Did  not  these  gentlemen 
employ  language  which  each  derived  from  his  predecessor,  or  from 
sources  not  implicitly  to  be  credited  ?  Did  not  Mr.  Van  Buren  merely 
reiterate  accusations  originally  preferred  by  General  Jackson  ?  Did  not 
the  latter  derive  his  knowledge  from  subordinate  functionaries  ?  And 
were  not  they  misled  by  the  representations  of  interested  and  not  trust 
worthy  claimants  ?  We  wish  some  specific  case  of  outrage  ;  we  desire 
to  know  whether  the  allegations  have  ever  been  investigated.  Has 
their  investigation  been  conducted  by  men  in  whose  integrity  and  capa 
city  confidence  may  be  reposed  ?  Are  the  claimants  men  of  respecta 
bility  and  worth  ?  and  have  they  sustained  their  pretensions  by  credible 
testimony  ?  These  are  all  pertinent  and  proper  subjects  of  inquiry  ;  and 
they  shall  be  answered  to  the  conviction  of  every  man  who  may  truly 
desire  to  come  to  a  correct  result  on  the  subject. 

The  record  of  the  proceedings  of  the  board  of  commissioners,  as 
reported  to  Congress,  is  now  before  us,  and  the  document  is  accessible 
to  all  who  have  curiosity  to  examine  the  matter.  In  the  first  tabular 
statement  appended  to  it,  embracing  cases  which  were  decided  by  the 
concurrent  judgment  of  the  American  and  Mexican  commissioners,  will 
be  found  the  following;  Peter  Harmony,  New  York,  amount  awarded, 
$11 ,130 — the  ground  of  claim,  "  specie  seized  on  the  way  to  Vera  Cruz, 
by  officers  of  the  government,  for  its  use."  J.  J.  Astor  &  Son,  New 
York,  $37,661  94 — "  For  the  brig  Cossack,  seized  on  the  western  coast 
of  Mexico,  &c."  Smith  Thompson,  and  others,  $2,093  67— "  Brig 
Splendid,  seized  and  employed  by  the  Mexican  government."  Theo 
dore  Ducoing,  $2,450 — "  For  forced  loan  and  seizure  of  property." 
John  F.  Old  et  al,  $13,267  69—"  Brig  Delight,  detention  of  the  vessel, 
and  seizure  of  part  of  the  cargo." 

The  second  table  comprehends  cases  which  were  finally  decided  by 
the  umpire,  the  members  of  the  board  differing  in  opinion.  This  includes 
the  following  cases :  Arnold,  Hicks,  and  others,  $77,260  57— seizure 
of  the  ship  Louisa  and  cargo.  Jackson  Marine  Insurance  Company, 
$9,361  95 — schooner  Brazoria  seized  and  employed  in  the  Mexican 
service.  Thomas  Wilson,  $47,194  32— seizure  of  schooner  Fair  Ameri- 


W  TK» 

93 

can.  Robinson  Potter,  $3,363  50— seizure  of,  and  employment  as  a 
transport  of  brig  William.  John  Baldwin,  $12,803  39 — personal  inju 
ries,  loss  of  property,  imprisonment,  &c.  M.  Mitchell,  $9,636  64 — 
seizure  of  specie  for  the  use  of  the  government,  between  Mexico  and 
Vera  Cruz.  Boric  and  Laguerenne,  $35,336  50 — illegal  exaction  of 
duties.  Aaron  Leggett,  $99,487  94 — seizure  of  steamboat,  and  other 
outrages.  Dennis  Callagan,  $12,042— seizure  of  vessel  and  imprison 
ment.  G.  G.  and  S.  Rowland,  $18,058  61 — seizure  of  wax.  Joseph 
Smith,  $18,762  63 — seizure  of  merchandise.  John  Baldwin  $100,000 
— various  outrages,  designated  by  the  commissioners  as  "  a  case  of  the 
most  extraordinary  and  aggravated  nature,"  and  for  which  the  American 
members  awarded  upwards  of  $210,000.  Same-,  $45,174  75— similar 
atrocities.  C.  Bradbury  and  others,  $119,966  39 — detention  of  the 
brig  Franklin. 

The  foregoing  constitute  but  a  small  number  of  cases  of  this  descrip 
tion,  in  many  of  which  the  Mexican  commissioners  only  differed  from 
their  American  colleagues  in  fixing  the  measure  of  compensation,  and 
in  all  of  which  they  were  afforded  a  full  opportunity  of  opposing  any 
allowance. 

A  third  table  shows  the  cases  which  were  returned  by  the  umpire 
without  his  award ;  he  being  debarred,  by  the  expiration  of  the  commis 
sion,  from  fulfilling  his  entire  duty. 

The  same  tabular  statements  comprehend  a  very  large  number  of 
claims  thus  passed  upon,  which  were  not  of  this  particular  class.  They 
were,  not  for  illegal  seizures  of  persons  and  property,  but  for  simple 
breach  of  faith  on  the  part  of  Mexico,  in  not  paying  for  advances  and 
supplies  furnished  her.  Enough,  however,  has  been  shown  to  make  it 
perfectly  manifest,  that  among  the  claimants  were  some  of  the  most  dis 
tinguished  and  irreproachable  merchants  in  the  land  ;  that  their  allega 
tions  have  been  examined  by  eminent  and  experienced  judges ;  that 
Mexico  had  every  opportunity  of  opposing  every  case,  while  the  claim 
ants  were  equally  debarred  from  seeing  the  evidence  and  hearing  the 
arguments  adduced  against  them  ;  .and  that  the  result  fixes  upon  Mexico 
the  most  flagrant  violations  of  public  law,  of  treaty  stipulations,  and  of 
personal  rights. 

Still  again  the  inquiry  may  be  made — What  was  the  character  of  the 
outrages  of  which  complaint  is  made  ?  This  also  shall  be  answered. 
One  shall  be  taken,  which,  from  its  public  character,  could  not  be  brought 
before  the  board  ;  and  one  of  private  outrage,  which  was  thoroughly 
examined,  and  upon  which  the  commissioners  and  the  umpire  passed 
their  judgment.  In  selecting  these,  it  must  be  observed  that  they  are 
thus  brought  forward,  not  because  they  are  distinguished  from  others  by 


94 

any  peculiarly  aggravating  circumstances,  but  because  the  facts  are 
exhibited  in  an  authentic  shape,  and  no  question  can  be  raised  as  to  the 
truth  of  the  narrative. 

It  will  be  unnecessary  here  to  particularize  the  case  of  Mr.  Slacum, 
an  officer  of  the  navy  of  the  United  States,  a  bearer  of  despatches  from 
the  department  of  State  to  the  United  States  legation  at  Mexico,  in 
1836,  who  was  arrested  by  Mexican  officers,  his  public  despatches 
demanded,  and  he  subjected  to  violent,  rude,  and  offensive  treatment ; 
or  of  the  case  of  another  public  messenger  of  the  United  States  bearing 
despatches  from  our  minister,  carrying  with  him  a  passport  of  safe-con 
duct  from  the  supreme  government  of  Mexico,  verifying  his  character, 
who  was  seized  by  the  governor  of  Perote  and  robbed  of  his  despatches  ; 
or  of  another  officer  who  was  seized  and  imprisoned  on  landing  from  a 
national  vessel.  Such  cases  were  outrages  upon  the  nation,  for  which 
atonement  was  never  made. 

We  shall  proceed  to  one  in  which  every  species  of  lawless  atrocity 
seems  to  have  been  combined.  In  December,  .1835,  a  Mexican  officer, 
of  the  name  of  Jose  Antonio  Mexia,  landed  at  Tampico  with  a  body  of 
men,  under  the  Mexican  flag.  His  unfortunate  associates  had  been 
inveigled  into  accompanying  him,  by  false  representations  as  to  their 
destination,  and  the  object  of  the  expedition.  Among  them  were  seve 
ral  foreigners,  the  larger  number  of  whom  were  Americans.  They  fell 
into  the  hands  of  Santa  Anna.  The  foreigners,  including  eighteen  citi 
zens  of  the  United  States,  were,  without  trial,  ordered  for  execution, 
and  inhumanly  murdered,  while  the  Mexican  part  of  them  were  not 
punished.  Two  Frenchmen  accompanied  this  expedition,  and  were 
among  the  victims ;  and  for  this  illegal  and  inhuman  murder,  France 
exacted  of  Mexico  such  atonement  as  she  thought  proper  to  demand. 
None  has  ever  been  made  to  the  government  of  the  United  States,  or  to  the 
families  of  these  unhappy  victims  of  Mexican  perfidy  and  Mexican  cruelty. 

I  shall  conclude  this  paper  with  a  quotation  from  the  despatch  of  the 
American  minister  at  Mexico,  transmitting  to  his  government  a  state 
ment  of  this  transaction,  and  his  commentary  upon  it.  "  It  is  not  for 
me,"  he  says,  "  to  point  out  the  course  which  my  government  should 
pursue  on  the  present  occasion  ;  but  surely  none  better  could  present 
itself,  to  justify  us  in  teaching  these  semi-barbarians  a  lesson  of  justice 
and  good  faith  ;  and  I  will  add,  that  if  this  barbarous  and  inhuman  act  be 
submitted  to — should  the  Mexican  government  be  permitted  to  escape, 
without  making  the  most  ample  satisfaction,  not  only  the  property  and 
lives  of  our  countrymen  in  Mexico  will  hereafter  be  held  at  the  mercy 
of  every  petty  officer  who  pleases  to  exert  his  power,  but  we  will  be 
come  the  scorn  of  all  nations.  Such  are  the  impressions  here  on  this 
matter." 


95 


No.  V. 

IT  seems  proper  to  present  one  case  of  private  wrong,  which  will 
equally  illustrate  the  course  of  conduct  which  the  Mexican  functionaries 
have  been  allowed  to  pursue  towards  American  citizens,  and  the  vexa 
tions  and  embarrassments  interposed  in  the  way  of  obtaining  redress  for 
the  most  aggravated  injuries  ;  while,  at  the  same  time,  it  will  furnish 
the  means  of  arriving  at  a  just  decision  upon  the  issue  now  made  be 
tween  the  two  governments.  Mexico  solemnly  asserts  that  she  has 
scrupulously  adhered  to  her  treaty  stipulations.  She  asserts  this,  while 
independently  of  the  two  instalments  payable  by  her  under  the  conven 
tion  of  1 843 — about  which  so  much  mystery  seems  to  exist,  but  for 
which  she  holds  the  receipt  of  the  American  agent — independently  of 
this,  she  undoubtedly  is  in  default,  in  not  paying  the  instalments  which 
fell  due  in  October,  January,  and  April  last. 

This  is  by-the-by.  Our  immediate  object  is  to  exhibit  one  case,  on 
which  Mexico  has  been  heard,  the  evidence  produced  (that  evidence 
mainly  consisting  of  the  judicial  proceedings  in  Tier  own  courts),  and 
the  decision  pronounced.  It  has  been  selected,  not  because  the  circum 
stances  of  it  are  marked  by  any  peculiar  atrocity  or  injustice,  but  because 
the  very  worthy  gentleman,  who  was  the  claimant  in  the  case,  has  been 
an  object  of  some  public  attention,  and  prejudices  may  have  been  im 
bibed,  equally  without  foundation  in  fact,  and  unjust  to  him.  The  case 
thus  selected,  is  »ne  of  the  several  cases  in  which  Dr.  John  Baldwin  was 
the  claimant ;  and  there  lies,  at  this  moment,  before  us,  the  statement 
of  the  facts,  and  the  exhibition  of  the  merits  of  this  case,  not  resting 
upon  the  veracity  of  the  party  himself,  or  his  counsel,  but  embodied  in 
the  judicial  opinion  of  Messrs.  Marcy  and  Breckenridge,  whose  charac 
ters  sufficiently  authenticate  and  verify  their  solemn  judgment,  delivered 
under  all  the  high  responsibilities  of  their  judicial  office. 

The  document  before  us  states,  that  "the  claimant,  Dr.  Baldwin,  a 
gentleman  of  talents,  education,  and  extensive  connection  in  the  United 
States,  being  possessed  of  considerable  capital,  went  to  Mexico  about 
the  year  1824.  His  object  in  going  there  was  to  establish  himself,  not 
only  as  a  merchant,  but  also  for  the  purpose  of  constructing  extensive 
saw-mills,  being  possessed  of  skill  in  such  machinery,  which  might  be 
greatly  advantageous  to  Mexico  as  well  as  to  himself.  The  situation 
chosen  by  him  was  one  of  the  most  important  in  the  whole  extent  of  the 
Republic — the  isthmus  of  Guascualco,  south  of  the  port  of  Vera  Cruz — 
the  country  bordering  on  the  river  Guascualo,  being  then  almost  a  wil- 


96 

derness  of  heavily-timbered  lands.  The  government  of  Mexico,  about 
the  same  time,  had  projected  a  settlement  or  colony  there  ;  and  a  num 
ber  of  French  families  were  invited  to  settle  in  the  neighborhood  chosen 
by  Dr.  Baldwin. 

"  Under  the  active  enterprise  and  exertions  of  Dr.  B.,  who  had 
brought  with  him  capital,  workmen,  and  persons  skilled  in  machinery, 
the  new  settlement  grew  rapidly,  and  gave  birth  to  the  village  of  Mina- 
tillan.  Mills  of  great  value  were  erected  by  Dr.  Baldwin,  at  which  the 
mahogany  and  other  valuable  timber  of  the  country  was  sawed,  giving 
employment  to  many  persons,  natives  and  foreigners,  and  bidding  fair  to 
lay  the  foundation  of  an  important  branch  of  wealth  and  industry  to 
the  nation.''' 

"  Dr.  Baldwin  had  purchased  a  tract  of  land  a  league  square  ;  and 
on  this  land,  of  which  he  was  put  in  possession  by  the  seller,  he  erected 
his  mills,  dwelling-house,  and  other  establishments.  He  also  made  ex 
tensive  preparations  for  clearing  lands,  &c.,  for  establishing  a  coffee 
plantation  upon  a  large  scale.  He  was  thus  in  the  full  tide  of  prosperity  : 
and,  if  he  had  been  protected  by  the  Mexican  authorities  and  govern 
ment,  would,  in  a  few  years,  have  realized  a  princely  fortune.  The 
facts  thus  stated  are  either  established  by  the  documents,  or  are  of  his 
torical  notoriety,  which,  it  is  presumed  will  not  be  questioned." 

"  But  these  prospects  were  soon  overcast.  The  series  of  oppres 
sions  and  persecutions,  of  which  Dr.  B.  complains,  commenced  soon 
after  the  arrival  of  Gaddeo  Ortiz  in  this  colony,  who,  under  the  title 
of  commissioner,  was  invested  with  extensive  political  power." 

"The  first  fact,  in  point  of  time,  is  that  sworn  to  in  the  deposi 
tions  of  S.  Macord  and  C.  Macord.  Some  time  in  the  year  1828, 
Dr.  B.  demanded  of  the  commissioner  Ortiz  payment  of  a  sum  of 
money  for  lumber  furnished  for  the  use  of  the  public,  in  building  a 
church  and  government-house.  They  state  that  Ortiz  took  offence  at 
this.  It  is  certain  that  the  injuries  complained  of  by  Dr.  B.  commenced 
soon  after  that  occurrence."  It  is  then  shown  that  certain  judicial  pro 
ceedings  purport  to  be  signed  by  an  alcalde  who  could  neither  read  nor 
write,  to  be  founded  on  testimony  given  by  witnesses,  who,  when  con 
fronted  with  the  accused,  solemnly  denied  that  they  had  given  any  such 
evidence,  or  even  testified  at  all ;  and  that  this  proceeding  was  finally 
proved  to  be  spurious  before  the  higher  tribunals.  "  In  the  meantime, 
the  claimant  had  suffered  in  his  person,  in  his  purse,  and  in  his  reputa 
tion.  He  had  been  imprisoned  nearly  a  year,  his  property  seized,  and 
his  character  as  a  merchant  impaired,  his  feelings  as  a  man  outraged, 
and  his  numerous  friends  in  the  United  States  chagrined  by  his  name 
being  regularly  published  in  the  newspapers  in  the  State  of  Vera  Cruz, 


97 

as  the  stranger  John  Baldwin,  accused  of  murder,  disobedience  to  the 
authorities,  of  stealing  timber  from  the  public  lands,  of  opening  a  private 
letter  addressed  to  another  person,  and  other  offences  !  But,  being  a 
man  of  intelligence  and  energy  of  character,  with  that  sturdy  spirit  of 
resistance  to  oppression  which  belongs  to  his  countrymen,  he  followed 
up  these  different  charges  through  a  period  of  nine  years  ;  until  on  the 
more  serious  accusations  he  was  acquitted  by  the  superior  tribunals, 
while  all  the  others  vanished  in  smoke."  The  evidence  is  examined  in 
detail ;  and  it  is  shown,  that  upon  these  fabricated  pretences,  the  pro 
perty  of  Dr.  R.,  consisting  of  his  saw  logs,  amounting  to  about  $15,000, 
was  seized  and  confiscated  to  the  State  ;  possession  was  taken  of  his 
establishment  and  houses,  and  he  was  thrust  out  of  his  dwelling  with  a 
few  minutes'  notice.  Neither  he  nor  his  family  were  permitted  to  take 
anything  away — not  even  a  small  bundle  for  the  use  of  his  wife.  The 
soldiers  kept  posssession  for  three  or  four  months  ;  and  when  B.  and  his 
family  came  back,  they  found  nothing  but  the  empty  houses  and  mills. 
Ortiz,  after  causing  Baldwin  to  be  driven  from  his  house,  took  posses 
sion  of  the  premises,  and  disposed  of  everything  as  his  own,  until  the 
revolution  which  placed  General  Guerrero  in  the  presidential  chair ; 
when  Martin  Arriola,  commandant  of  Acayuacan,  restored  B.  to  his 
home  ;  but  his  moveable  property  had  all  disappeared  in  the  mean 
time." 

In  a  subsequent  part  of  this  document,  after  a  minute  review  of  the 
testimony,  the  American  commissioner  says  :  "  We  think  that  the  evi 
dence  of  bad  faith  and  fraud  on  the  part  of  the  commissioner  Ortiz,  and 
his  successor,  Hoyos,  is  too  glaringly  manifested  on  the  face  of  the  pro 
ceedings  we  have  detailed,  to  be  fora  moment  questioned.     The  violent 
and  malignant  character  of  the  denunciatory  letter  of  Ortiz,  at  once   be 
trays  the  motive  by  which  he  was  actuated.     He  had  important  political 
power ;  he  styles  himself  commissioner  of  the  colony  of  Guascualco, 
authorised  by  the  general  government  of  Mexico,  and  of  Oaxaca  and 
Vera  Cruz  ;  and  his  malignant  influence  may  be  traced  from  Guascualco 
to  Tehuantepec,  and  was  probably  the  source  of  nearly  all  the  sufferings 
of  Dr.  Baldwin  in  the  country.     Besides  the  letter  in  which  he  appeals 
to  the  higher  political  authority — but  appeals  in  vain — for  the  sanction 
of  his  arbitrary  acts,  especially  in  that  of  banishing  Dr.  Baldwin,  we 
have  the  forged  '  Sumaria  '—established  to  be  such,  beyond  a  doubt. 
There  are,  first,  the  repeated  signatures   of  Montalvo  (who  could  not 
write  his  name),  and  next,  there  is  the  hand-writing,  which,  by  com 
parison,  is  evidently  that  of  Ortiz  himself,  and  his  secretary  Vallejo. 
One  of  the  commissioners,  by  a  singular  coincidence,  happens  to  be  well  ac 
quainted  with  the  hand-writing  of  Ortiz,  having  known  him  in  New  Or- 


98 

leans  twenty-five  or  thirty  years  ago,  having  taken  Spanish  lessons  from 
him,  and  corresponded  with  him.  He  does  not  hesitate  to  pronounce  that 
the  greater  part  of  the  i  SUMARIA  '  is  in  his  hand-writing  ;  and  the  signa 
ture  of  Mont  ah  o  is  sometimes  his,  and  sometimes  that  of  Vallejo" 

We  have  here  the  most  indubitable  proof  that  this  high  functionary 
first  perpetrated  a  high-handed  act  of  lawless  tyranny,  involving  an 
American  citizen  in  ruin,  und  then  endeavored  to  cover  over  his  iniqui 
ties  by  the  forgery  of  a  judicial  record.  Further  details  of  this  case  will 
be  given  in  our  next. 


No.  VI. 

"  WE  resume  our  quotations  from  the  report  of  Messrs.  Marcy  and 
Breckenridge  on  the  claim  of  Dr.  Baldwin. 

"  We  have  refrained  from  entering  into  a  detail  of  the  circumstan 
ces  attending  the  unparalleled  act  of  atrocity  in  the  two  Mexican  func 
tionaries,  (Ortiz  and  Hoyos),  in  first  attempting  the  life  of  Dr.  Baldwin, 
by  ordering  him  to  be  shot  by  a  brutal  soldiery  on  his  attempting  to  es 
cape  the  ignomin}'' — worse  than  death,  to  one  possessing  the  feelings  of 
a  gentleman — of  being  placed  in  the  public  stocks,  intended  for  the  low 
est  order  of  criminals  and  malefactors.  He  was,  however,  compelled  to 
undergo  this  degradation  during  the  space  of  two  hours,  with  a  broken 
leg,  and  was  then  hurried  to  a  loathesome  prison,  where  he  was  detain 
ed  eighty-four  days.  But  for  his  own  skill  as  a  physician,  he  must  in 
evitably  have  perished  ;  and  this  was,  no  doubt,  the  confident  calculation 
of  the  conspirators.  They  had  doubtless  calculated  with  equal  confi 
dence  on  the  effect  of  their  various  criminal  prosecutions.  They  sup 
posed  it  would  be  impossible  for  him  to  remain  in  the  country,  under 
such  circumstances  ;  and  but  for  the  possession  of  an  extraordinary 
degree  of  fortitude  on  the  part  of  Dr.  Baldwin,  and  the  desire  to  rescue 
his  reputation  from  the  stigma  attempted  to  be  cast  upon  it,  their  designs 
would  have  been  accomplished.  He  persevered  until  all  the  accusations 
made  against  him  were  annihilated.  We  consider  it  our  duty  on  this 
occasion,  not  only  to  do  justice  to  Dr.  B.  for  injuries  to  his  person  and 
property,  but  also  for  the  assaults  made  on  his  reputation.  Our  Mexi 
can  colleagues,  we  regret  to  say,  have  indulged  in  disparaging  reflections 
on  this  head,  not  warranted  by  any  evidence  in  the  proceedings  submit 
ted  to  us. 

"  As  men  do  not  act  without  adequate  motives,  or  soil  their  conscien 
ces  with  crime  of  the  deepest  dye,  without  those  stronger  incentives 


99 

which  govern  the  human  passions,  other  considerations  will  here  be  pre 
sented  besides  those  of  hate  and  revenge,  and  the  desire  to  wipe  out 
debts  by  exterminating  the  creditor.  The  property  acquired  and  crea 
ted  by  the  enterprise,  skill,  and  capital  of  Dr.  B.,  presented  a  glit 
tering  prize  to  petty  pro-consular  avarice  and  cupidity,"  &c.  "  With 
the  advantages  possessed  by  Dr.  B.  in  his  extensive  commercial  relations 
and  capital,  and  his  valuable  saw-mills  and  plantations  of  coffee  and  tro 
pical  fruits,  it  is  impossible  to  doubt  but  that,  with  a  moderate  protec 
tion  from  the  Mexican  government,  he  would  have  acquired  a  fortune 
more  desirable  than  that  of  the  most  valuable  of  the  mines  of  Mexico. 
It  was  no  doubt,  in^a  great  measure,  owing  to  an  unwillingness  on  his 
part  to  sacrifice  these  brilliant  hopes,  that  he  endured  the  oppressions  of 
the  authorities,  still  flattering  himself  with  the  belief  that  a  better  order 
of  things  might  be  established. 

"  We  shall  make  the  following  extract  from  the  letter  of  Mr.  Butler, 
of  September,  1833,  based  on  Mr.  Livingston's  instructions. 

"  i  The  undersigned  is  further  instructed  to  declare,  that  the  govern 
ment  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in  pressing  for  the  redress  of  the 
injuries  suffered  by  Dr.  Baldwin,  and  in  discharge  of  those  solemn  du 
ties  it  owes  to  every  citizen  of  our  country,  in  affording  him  the  most 
ample  protection,  designs  to  make  this  a  national  question,  and  will  so 
treat  it  hereafter  S 

"  After  the  above  explicit  declaration,  placing  the  case  of  Dr.  B.  upon 
a  distinct  and  separate  ground  from  any  other,  it  might  be  reasonably 
doubted  whether  it  is  included  under  the  general  convention  subsequent 
ly  entered  into.  It  might  be  contended  that,  not  being  provided  for  by 
a  special  clause,  the  nation  was  still  left  at  liberty  to  vindicate  its  honor 
and  its  rights  in  any  other  mode.  If  there  had  been  no  other  cause  of 
complaint  against  Mexico,  the  United  States  would  have  been  bound,  after 
such  a  declaration,  to  push  that  demand,  even  to  the  extremity  of  war. 

u  The  ground  thus  taken  by  the  government  of  the  United  States, 
the  highest  political  power  of  the  nation,  is  based  on  the  assumption  of 
the  truth  of  the  facts  presented  to  it.  The  words  of  Mr.  Livingston  are 
as  follows  :  c  If  the  facts  in  the  case  of  Baldwin  are  such  as  he  repre 
sents  them  to  be,  the  honor  of  our  country  requires  that  ample  reparation 
should  be  made  to  the  sufferer.'  Our  examination  of  the  proofs  of  the 
case  has  brought  us  to  the  conclusion  that  the  statements  of  the  claimant 
to  his  government  are  substantially  sustained.  The  principles  on  which 
we  are  bound  by  the  convention  to  decide  the  cases  brought  before  us, 
oblige  us  to  come  to  a  result  in  regard  to  Dr.  Baldwin's  private  rights, 
entirely  compatible  with  what  the  government  of  the  United  States  inti 
mated  was  due  to  its  national  honor — reparation  of  his  aggravated 


100 

wrongs."  Upon  this  case,  the  American  commissioners,  indulging  the 
hope  entertained,  that,  by  placing  the  most  moderate  estimate  upon  the 
remuneration  to  which  the  claimant  was  entitled,  no  difficulty  or  doubt 
could  be  entertained,  and  that  it  would  be  immediately  acquiesced  in, 
assessed  the  damages  to  which  he  was  entitled  a-t  $210,405  09.  In 
consequence,  however,  of  the  non-production  of  his  title-deed  for  the 
real  estate,  of  which  he  had  been  robbed  by  his  plunderers,  and  which, 
therefore,  it  was  not  in  his  power  to  produce — for  which  a  demand  was 
made  upon  the  Mexican  government,  under  one  of  the  articles  of  the 
treaty,  to  which  she  responded  by  alleging,  on  the  authority  of  the  local 
functionaries,  that  it  was  destroyed  by  fire  while  in  their  possession — 
this  sum  was  reduced  by  the  umpire  to  the  sum  of  $100,000.  Such  is 
a  very  imperfect  sketch  of  the  circumstances  upon  whi-ch  one  of  the 
claims  of  American  citizens  against  Mexico  rested.  The  evidence  to 
sustain  the  allegations  of  the  claimant  were,  in  a  great  extent,  the  record 
of  the  proceedings  of  their  own  courts.  Nine  years  of  persecution 
were  endured  ;  a  princely  estate  despoiled  ;  the  most  glorious  promises 
nipped  in  their  bud ; — all  through  the  instrumentality  of  Mexican  func 
tionaries,  executive  and  judicial.  It  has  been  examined,  and  decided  by 
our  ablest  diplomatists  and  jurists  ;  yet  Mexico  asserts  before  the  world, 
and  her  Executive  and  her  Legislature  a'ver  before  their  own  people, 
that  she  has  been  faithful  to  her  engagements,  loyal  to  her  honor  ;  and 
that  the  United  States  has  no  other  pretence  of  claim  than  such  as  is 
afforded  by  an  iniquitous  attempt  to  cover  the  smuggling  operations  of 
her  citizens  with  the  veil  of  right ! 


VII. 

THOSE  who  have  perused  the  preceding  articles  which  have  appeared 
under  this  head,  must,  it  is  presumed,  be  prepared  to  pass  their  judg 
ment  upon  the  bold  assertion  which  Mexico  has  so  solemnly  pro 
claimed  to  the  world,  that  she  has  scrupulously  respected  her  tredJty 
obligations.  The  course  of  that  nation  has  been  rapidly  sketched  from 
authentic  documents.  It  has  been  shown  that  it  has  been  uniform  and 
consistent,  equally  setting  at  defiance  the  laws  of  nations  and  of  human 
ity,  and  equally  regardless  of  public  and  private  rights.  The  details  of 
a  great  body  of  the  cases  in  which  the  citizens  of  the  United  States 
have  suffered  wrongs  from  the  public  authorities  of  Mexico,  are  still  to 
be  found  in  the  Department  of  State,  and  have  never  been  promulgated 
to  the  public.  Numerous  instances  have  occurred  in  which  the  unfor- 


101 

tunate  victims  of  Mexican  inhumanity  have  perished  under  her  cruel 
grasp,  and  the  history  of  the  wrong  has  been  buried  in  the  grave  of  the 
unhappy  sufferer.  The  public  documents,  and  other  authentic  sources 
of  information,  mention  many  such  cases.  In  many  others,  the  parties, 
hopeless  of  rousing  the  sympathies  of  their  countrymen  or  the  energy  of 
their  government,  have  abandoned  the  prosecution  of  claims  which  ne 
cessarily  involve  a  large  expenditure  of  time  and  money,  which  they 
were  unable  to  command  ;  while  in  others,  ruin,  bankruptcy,  or  death 
has  devolved  upon  assignees  or  destitute  widows  and  orphans  the  right 
to  redress,  which  they  knew  neither  how  nor  where  to  seek. 

In  the  present  paper,  I  shall  present  a  case  which  will  furnish  to  the 
American  public,  who  have  always  associated  high  official  station  with 
personal  honor  and  veracity,  an  opportunity  of  judging  whether  such  a 
connection  subsists  in  Mexico.  In  House  Doc.  No.  269,  27th  Con 
gress,  2d  session,  will  be  found  the  counter-statements  of  the  American 
and  Mexican  commissioners  upon  the  claim  of  Mr.  Aaron  Leggett.  An 
extract  from  the  opinion  of  the  former  will  illustrate  this  subject.  It 
will  be  found  at  page  1 1  of  the  Document : 

"  The  next  question  to  be  resolved  is,  did  the  public  authorities  of 
the  State  of  Tabasco,  or  any  other  of  the  Mexican  States,  invade  Leg- 
gett's  right,  or  permit  it  to  be  invaded,  under  circumstances  which  in 
volved  the  Mexican  government  in  a  responsibility  therefor  ? 

"  In  discussing  this  question  at  the  board,  our  colleagues  seemed  to 
place  the  utmost  reliance  on  the  statements  contained  in  the  record  of 
the  proceedings  before  the  judge  of  the  court  of  primary  jurisdiction  at 
Tabasco,  in  November,  1834.  On  the  contrary,  we,  the  undersigned, 
regarded  the  statements  therein  as  worthy  of  very  little  consideration. 
It  is  certainly  of  great  importance,  in  the  outset  of  this  discussion,  that 
the  true  character  of  this  portion  of  the  evidence  should  be  ascertained. 
We  shall,  in  the  first  place,  show  the  circumstances  under  which  this 
evidence  was  taken  ;  and  infer  therefrom,  that,  were  it  not  contradicted, 
it  would  be  entitled  to  very  little  credence  ;  and,  in  the  next,  we  shall 
show  its  absolute  falsity  in  several  important  particulars. 

a  Leggett  had,  some  time  before  this  investigation  was  ordered,  not 
only  complained  to  the  Mexican  government  of  the  violation  of  his 
rights,  but  he  had  presented  an  account  of  his  losses  and  damages  in 
consequence  thereof,  and  made  an  earnest  and  urgent  claim  for  indemni 
fication."  "  Not  only  was  this  large  claim  urged  by  Mr.  Leggett  on  the 
Mexican  government,  but  the  American  government  had  been  called 
upon  to  interpose  in  behalf  of  its  injured  citizen,  and  had  actually  done 
so.  The  Mexican  government  perceived  (as  well  it  might)  that  this  was 
a  serious  matter,  and  began  to  take  steps  to  defend  itself  from  so  large  a 


102 

demand  upon  its  treasury.  It  sent  Leggett's  memorial,  documents, 
&c.,  to  the  judge  of  the  court  of  primary  jurisdiction  of  Tabasco,  with  a 
view  to  have  the  matters  therein  contained  inquired  into.  We  will  not 
say  that  the  object  of  the  Mexican  government,  in  ordering  this  investi 
gation,  was  not  fair  ;  but  it  is  obvious  to  the  slightest  reflection,  that 
the  results  of  such  an  investigation,  unless  the  claimant  was  permitted 
to  be  present  to  cross-examine  the  witnesses  which  might  be  called  on 
the  part  of  the  Mexican  government,  and  produce  witnesses  on  his  part 
in  support  of  his  claim,  would  be  of  very  little  avail  in  subserving  the 
ends  of  truth  and  justice.  But,  in  regard  to  the  conduct  of  those  who 
had  the  charge  of  this  proceeding,  we  must  say  that  it  seems  to  have 
been  their  object  to  get  up  a  contradiction  to  the  facts  in  Leggett's  me 
morial  ;  and  when  those  facts  were  so  obvious  as  to  defy  contradiction, 
to  pervert  them,  and  to  explain  the  transactions  with  Leggett  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  furnish  an  excuse  for  withholding  indemnity  from  him. 

"  When  the  claims  of  American  citizens — among  which  was  Mr. 
Leggett's — were  pressed  upon  the  Mexican  government  for  adjustment, 
previous  to  this  time,  by  the  American  minister  (Mr.  Butler),  the  Vice 
President  of  the  Republic — General  Santa  Anna,  then  exercising  its 
chief  Executive  functions — replied  to  him,  through  Mr.  Carlos  Garcia, 
Secretary  of  State,  that  i  his  excellency  had  directed  the  undersigned  to 
inform  Mr.  Butler  that  the  government,  in  consequence  of  what  was  de 
termined  and  communicated  to  him  on  the  21st  ultimo,  cannot  admit  of 
any  other  arrangement  than  that  the  persons  interested  should  appear  at 
the  Treasury  Department  for  the  prosecution  of  such  business,  wrhere 
justice  will  be  administered  to  them,  conformably  to  the  laws  of  the 
country,"  &c. 

"  In  consequence  of  this  absolute  refusal  of  the  Mexican  government 
to  consider  the  claims  of  American  citizens,  without  their  personal  ap 
pearance  '  at  the  Treasury  Department,'  (a  strange  position,  indeed  !) 
the  negotiation  in  regard  to  these  claims  was  arrested.  Notice  of  this 
fact  was  communicated  to  Mr.  Leggett,  at  New  York.  As  all  his  pro 
perty  had  been  lost,  and  all  his  future  prospects  centred  upon  the  indem 
nity  which  he  expected  from  the  Mexican  government,  he  repaired,  in 
the  spring  of  1834,  to  Mexico,  to  appear  in  person  '  at  the  Treasury 
Department, 'as  the  order  of  the  Executive  department  required,  to  bring 
his  business  to  a  conclusion.  He  arrived  at  the  city  of  Mexico  early  in 
the  summer  of  1S34,  and  there  remained  more  than  two  years,  devoted 
exclusively  to  this  business,  encouraged  with  hopes  of  justice,  which 
were  ultimately  destined  to  be  cruelly  disappointed.  While  he  was 
thus  there,  urging  the  adjustment  of  his  claim,  this  investigation  was  or 
dered  ;  but  the  organization  of  the  court,  and  its  whole  proceedings, 


103 

were  kept  a  profound  secret  from  him  (though  it  was  well  known  he 
was  in  Mexico  all  the  time,  and  had  no  other  business),  until  the  27th 
August,  1835,  long  after  its  session  had  closed.  On  the  1st  September, 
Leggett  addressed  Mr.  Bonilla,  Secretary  of  Foreign  Affairs,  for  a  copy 
of  the  proceedings  of  the  Tabasco  court.  The  proceedings  were  not 
made  known  to  him  ;  but  the  Secretary  of  State,  by  Mr.  Tornel,  the 
Secretary  of  War,  furnished  him  with  the  statement  contained  in  the 
document,  pp.  76,  77.' 

"  So  far  as  this  document  reiterates  the  statement  in  the  record,  it  is 
of  the  same  validity  as  the  record  itself,  which  we  shall  show,  is  en 
titled  to  no  credence  whatever.  But  we  cannot  withhold  our  astonish 
ment  that  Mr.  Tornel,  Secretary  of  War,  should  state  that  it  appeared 
before  that  court,  and  in  its  proceedings,  that  Leggett  owed  the  cus 
tom-house  fourteen  thousand  dollars  for  duties,  for  which  he  was  sued 
and  judgment  had  passed  against  him  therefor,  and  his  property  was 
seized,  &c.  We  have  the  record  of  that  investigation,  and  it  shows  no 
such  thing  ;  and,  what  is  equally  remarkable,  no  such  fact  ever  existed, 
within  or  out  of  the  record.  When  we  see,  as  we  do  in  this  instance,  ex 
treme  carelessness,  in  relation  to  facts,  in  this  high  functionary  of  the 
government,  we  are  not  to  be  surprised  that  officers  of  a  much  lower 
order  should  be  very  reckless  in  their  statements." 

In  reference  to  the  merits  of  this  particular  claim,  it  will  not  be  neces 
sary  to  go  into  any  minuteness  or  detail.  The  facts,  and  the  evidence 
to  sustain  them,  are  given  with  much  force  and  ability  in  the  report  of 
the  American  commissioners  above  referred  to,  and  which,  it  is  under 
stood,  was  drawn  up  by  Governor  Marcy.  He  cites,  however,  in  that 
paper,  a  statement  of  what  occurred  in  an  interview  between  the  Ame 
rican  minister  and  the  Mexican  President  on  this  special  subject :  "  In 
the  course  of  the  interview,  General  Santa  Anna  admitted  that  you  had 
suffered  great  wrong  ;  but  said,  the  injuries  done  you,  although  to  be 
regretted,  were  incident  to  the  peculiar  condition  of  the  country,  at  that 
period  undergoing  a  political  revolution — during  which,  individual  rights, 
whether  of  person  or  property,  were  equally  disregarded,  and  expressed 
regret  and  mortification  that  the  state  of  the  public  treasury  would  not 
permit  immediate  satisfaction  to  be  made  to  you." 

The  American  commissioners  awarded  to  Mr.  Leggett,  $407,079  41, 
for  his  losses  ;  but  the  amount  was  reduced  by  the  umpire.  No  part  of 
it  was  admitted  by  the  Mexicans. 


No.  VIII. 

IT  is  presumed  that  the  case  has  now  been  completely  established, 
that  Mexico  has  violated  the  treaty  engagements  with  the  United  States, 
and  that  a  large  amount  of  injury  has  thus  been  inflicted  upon  Ameri 
can  citizens,  for  which  she  is  bound  to  make  compensation.  The  obli 
gation  of  the  government  of  the  United  States  to  demand  and  insist 
upon  this  act  of  justice,  has  been  so  frequently  and  so  distinctly  avowed 
and  recognized  by  it,  that  it  will  be  unnecessary  to  go  into  an  argument 
to  sustain  the  existence  of  the  duty. 

A  very  serious  and  interesting  inquiry  remains.  How  shall  this  obli 
gation  be  enforced,  and  this  duty  fulfilled  ?  It  may  be  answered,  that  it 
will  be  done  by  some  arrangement  made  between  the  two  powers ;  for 
even  should  Mexico  be  so  lost  to  all  sense  of  justice  and  of  policy  as  to 
declare  war  against  us,  still  such  a  war  must  be  brought  to  a  close,  and 
terms  of  peace  agreed  upon.  Independently,  also,  of  the  questions 
growing  out  of  wrongs  perpetrated  upon  our  citizens,  there  are  great 
questions  of  boundary  to  be  arranged,  which  must  be  adjusted  by  treaty. 

Assuming,  therefore,  that  the  government  of  the  United  States  will, 
sooner  or  later,  redeem  its  pledge  of  obtaining  that  remuneration  for 
these  wrongs,  which  has  been  so  repeatedly  and  solemnly  promised,  we 
shall  proceed  to  inquire,  in  reference  to  the  claims  themselves,  what 
course  of  proceeding  is  open  to  the  Executive,  and  what  is  that  which 
will  commend  itself  to  its  judgment  ? 

In  conducting  this  examination,  valuable  lights  may  be  thrown  on  the 
subject,  drawn  from  our  own  past  history,  and  from  the  principles  here 
tofore  recognized  and  established  by  the  government,  as  well  in  relation 
to  such  of  our  citizens  as  alleged  themselves  to  be  injured,  as  to  the  for 
eign  nations  who  were  the  perpetrators  of  these  wrongs. 

The  first  instance  which  occurred  in  our  history  was  with  Great  Bri 
tain,  with  which  nation  many  embarrassing  questions  had  grown  up  since 
the  treaty  of  peace  in  1783.  Many  of  these  questions  were  of  an  ex 
clusively  political  and  national  character,  which  need  be  noticed  only  so 
far  as  to  remark,  that  they  were  conducted  to  an  harmonious  conclusion 
by  the  treaty  of  1794.  But  a  very  important  subject  to  be  arranged 
was,  that  of  claims  of  citizens  of  the  United  States,  who  alleged  that, 
during  the  then  pending  war,  "  they  have  sustained  considerable  losses 
and  damage  by  reason  of  the  illegal  capture  or  condemnation  of  their 
vessels  and  other  property,  under  color  of  authority  or  commissions  from 
his  Majesty  ;  and  that,  from  various  circumstances  belonging  to  such 
cases,  adequate  compensation  for  the  losses  and  damages  so  sustained 


105 

cannot  now  be  actually  had  and  obtained  by  the  ordinary  course  of  judi 
cial  proceedings.1'  These  cases  were  provided  for  under  the  7th  Article 
of  the  treaty  of  1794 — (1  Laws  United  States,  p.  241).  It  will  be  re 
marked,  that  there  is  but  a  single  class  of  cases  comprehended  within 
this  provision,  viz  :  for  illegal  capture  and  condemnation  under  the  au 
thority  of  the  British  government ;  that  it  embraced,  and,  in  fact,  was 
mainly  confined  to,  cases  in  which  the  capture  had  been  sanctioned  by 
a  decree  of  condemnation  in  the  British  courts  of  admiralty  ;  and  thirdly, 
that  the  treaty,  by  pronouncing  such  capture  and  condemnations  as  ille 
gal,  had  already  disposed  of  this  preliminary  question,  otherwise  full  of 
embarrassment,  and  conceded  that  the  orders  from  the  British  govern 
ment  were  wrongful,  and  that  the  most  solemn  adjudications  of  their 
admiralty  courts  were  confessedly  illegal,  and  imposed  upon  the  govern 
ment  of  Great  Britain  the  obligation  of  making  full  compensation. 

In  discharge  of  its  own  acknowledged  duty  towards  its  citizens,  the 
government  of  the  United  States  instructed  Mr.  Jay,  eminent  for  his 
high  legal  attainments,  to  examine  minutely  into  these  cases  ;  the  Sec 
retary  of  State,  also  a  distinguished  lawyer,  proffered  to  furnish  his 
views,  together  with  all  the  information  in  the  possession  of  the  depart 
ment.  Not  satisfied  with  this,  on  the  recommendation  of  Mr.  Jay  that 
the  United  States  should  employ  a  special  agent  for  the  purpose  of  giving 
his  individual  attention  to  this  business,  the  Secretary  of  State,  in  his 
despatch  to  Mr.  Jay,  of  October  29,  1794,  says :  "  On  Tuesday  next, 
the  Adriana  will  carry  to  London  Mr.  Samuel  Bayard.  In  consequence 
of  your  recommendation  that  an  agent  should  be  sent,  that  gentleman 
goes  over,  with  the  approbation  of  the  merchants  of  this  city  interested 
in  British  captures,  for  the  objects  designated  in  your  letter  of  the  23d 
August.  When  I  convened  them  for  the  purpose  of  consultation,  they 
seemed  to  have  great  reluctance  to  meddle  at  all  in  a  business  which 
they  considered  as  taken  wholly  into  the  hands  of  the  government. 
But,  after  many  explanations  and  remarks  which  passed  between  us, 
they  resolved  to  appoint  a  committee,  who  should  act  in  concert  with 
me.  That  committee  accordingly  wrote  me  the  enclosed  letter.*  I 
accepted  their  proposition  as  there  expressed,  because  I  knew  it  to  be 
consentaneous  to  the  views  of  the  President,  who  has  this  day  signified 
his  approbation." 

Another  agent  (a  Mr.  Higginson)  was  also  sent  to  the  West  Indies,  to 
procure  the  records  from  the  several  courts  of  vice-admiralty. 

One  impediment  which  immediately  arose  on  the  business,  was  occa 
sioned  by  the  necessity  which  existed  of  carrying  all  the  decrees  of  con 
demnation,  passed  by  the  colonial  vice-admiralty  courts,  to  England  for 
*  This  letter  does  not  appear. 


106 

final  adjudication.  This  step  involved  the  necessity  of  giving  security 
on  the  appeal  in  each  case,  and  of  furnishing  the  means  for  paying  the 
legal  costs  and  professional  fees  in  every  case.  This  was  almost  an 
impossibility  on  the  part  of  the  claimants.  The  government  assumed 
the  heavy  duty ;  it  authorized  the  employment  as  counsel  of  the  two 
most  distinguished  advocates  at  the  English  bar  (Sir  John  Nichols  and 
Sir  William  Scott),  competent  and  able  proctors  to  conduct  the  cases 
through  the  court  of  admiralty  ;  instructed  Mr.  Jay  and  Mr.  Bayard  to 
engage  some  responsible  commercial  house  in  London  to  become  security 
in  the  appeal  bonds,  with  a  full  assurance  of  indemnity,  and  an  immedi 
ate  advance  of  £30  in  each  case  of  appeal,  to  the  proctor. — See  Doc. 
106,  1  Gales  and  Seaton's  State  Papers,  Foreign  Relations,  470,  499, 
513,  514,  515. 

In  this  case  there  was  a  mixed  commission,  and  we  have  seen  the 
steps  pursued  by  the  government  of  the  United  States  in  discharging  its 
obligations  to  give  protection  to  its  citizens. 

The  only  other  case  of  a  tribunal  of  this  character  having  been  created 
to  adjust  the  claims  of  American  citizens  upon  a  foreign  government, 
•within  our  recollection,  was  also  under  an  arrangement  with  Great 
Britain.  By  the  first  Article  of  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  it  was  provided 
that  "  all  territory,  places,  and  possessions  whatever,  taken  by  either 
party  from  the  other  during  the  war,  &c.,  shall  be  restored  without 
delay,  &c.,  without  any  destruction  or  carrying  away  of  any  public  pro 
perty,  or  any  slaves  or  other  private  property."  A  controversy  arose 
between  the  two  governments  upon  the  construction  of  this  Article,  and 
it  remained  unsettled  from  1815  till  1820,  when,  by  mutual  arrangement, 
it  was  submitted  to  the  Emperor  of  Russia  to  determine  upon  the  true 
interpretation  of  the  treaty.  The  construction  contended  for  by  the 
United  States  having  been  sanctioned  by  the  decision  of  that  monarch, 
thus  settling  the  entire  legal  question,  the  ascertainment  of  the  amount 
of  injury,  which  had  been  sustained  by  American  citizens  by  the  depor 
tation  of  their  property,  was  submitted  to  a  board  of  commissioners, 
composed  of  representatives  of  both  nations.  In  this  case,  also,  it  will 
be  remarked,  that  the  question  of  law,  upon  the  decision  of  which  the 
validity  of  the  claims  rested,  were  all  settled  preliminarily  between  the 
two  governments.  All  that  was  left  for  the  board  was,  the  ministerial 
duty  of  ascertaining  the  items  and  value  of  the  property  carried  away 
by  the  British  forces,  in  violation  of  the  treaty  of  peace. 

Until  the  unfortunate  arrangement  with  Mexico,  by  which  the  claim 
ants  were  turned  over  to  the  tender  mercies  of  a  board  constituted  of  an 
equal  number  of  citizens  of  both  countries,  these  were,  as  it  is  believed, 
the  only  instances  in  which  the  government  of  the  United  States  had  ever 


107 

assented  to  the  organization  of  a  tribunal  of  this  description,  to  whose 
decision  the  rights  and  interests  of  its  citizens  were  committed.  We 
have  seen  in  these  instances  how  cautiously  their  rights  and  interests 
were  guarded  ;  and  no  fair  and  honorable  claimant  would  or  could  object, 
under  the  circumstances,  to  the  investigation  and  adjudication  of  his 
case  by  such  a  tribunal  as  was  constituted.  How  far  the  Mexican 
claimants  have  cause  to  complain,  will  be  made  to  appear. 


No.  IX. 

THERE  has  occurred  in  the  history  of  our  country,  a  second  class  of 
cases,  in  which  the  United  States  have  obtained  from  foreign  govern 
ments  compensation  for  wrongs  inflicted  upon  our  citizens.  The 
most  important  of  these  are  those  of  France,  Spain,  Naples,  and  Den 
mark.  In  reference  to  each  and  all  of  these,  the  relations  of  amity  had 
been  re-established  between  the  respective  powers  before  these  matters 
were  adjusted.  Spain,  Naples,  and  Denmark  were  called  upon  to  atone 
for  injuries  which  had  been  perpetrated,  when  the  nation  itself  within 
whose  borders  they  had  been  committed,  was  subjected  to  a  foreign 
sway.  Morally,  the  nation,  under  these  circumstances,  was  innocent  of 
the  wrrong.  A  superior  and  controlling  authority  had  done  the  acts  com 
plained  of ;  and  the  subjected  power,  when  the  ancient  regime  was  re 
established,  was  called  upon  to  redress  injuries  which  they  had  no  hand 
in  perpetrating,  and  which  they  would  most  gladly  have  prevented.  By 
a  well-settled  principle  of  public  law,  however,  the  responsibility  had 
attached  ;  but  every  consideration  required  that  it  should  be  enforced 
as  leniently  as  possible. 

After  an  examination  by  our  own  functionaries  of  the  grounds  of  com 
plaint,  a  definite  sum  was  fixed  upon,  which  it  was  agreed  to  accept  as 
a  full  atonement  for  these  injuries,  thus  vicariously  to  be  satisfied  by  an 
innocent  party.  Commissioners  appointed  by  the  United  States  inves 
tigated  the  claims,  and  distributed  the  money  among  those  whom  they 
adjudged  to  be  entitled  to  receive  it.  In  regard  to  Spain,  the  sum  thus 
apportioned  wras  the  amount  which  the  United  States  agreed  to  pay  for 
the  transfer  of  Florida.  The  same  principle  was  adopted  in  the  adjust 
ment  of  our  claims  upon  France.  The  government  carefully  collected 
the  evidence  showing  the  nature  and  amount  of  the  losses  which  had 
been  sustained  by  its  citizens  ;  adjusted  with  France  the  legal  points,  so 
as  to  show  what  particular  classes  of  cases  were  provided  for,  and  what 
were  excluded  ;  received  a  gross  sum  in  liquidation  of  the  whole  ;  and 


108 

submitted  the  distribution  to  a  board  of  its  own  citizens.  This  last 
class  of  cases  was,  in  every  respect,  a  compromise  between  the  govern 
ments. 

It  is  well  understood  that  the  administration  which  made  the  arrange 
ment  with  Mexico,  under  which  a  mixed  commission  was  created, 
adopted  that  measure  with  the  greatest  reluctance.  It  was  in  a  manner 
forced  upon  them  by  a  powerful  party  in  Congress,  who  were  unwilling 
to  place  in  the  hands  of  General  Jackson  the  additional  strength,  which 
it  was  supposed  would  accrue  by  any  warlike  movement.  It  encounter 
ed  the  serious  opposition  of  several  of  the  claimants,  and  has  proved,  as 
they  predicted,  in  a  great  measure  abortive. 

The  lessons  which  have  been  taught  by  our  experience  under  that 
arrangement,  wrill  induce  the  government  seriously  to  pause  before  a 
similar  measure  shall  be  adopted.  A  recurrence  to  some  prominent 
incidents  which  occurred  in  the  history  of  that  commission  will  illustrate, 
as  well  the  insincerity  and  bad  faith  of  Mexico,  as  the  cruel  injustice 
which  was  thus  inflicted  upon  the  American  claimants. 

It  will  be  recollected,  that  in  consequence  of  the  energetic  language 
employed  by  Presidents  Jackson  and  Van  Buren,  in  reference  to  the 
manner  in  which  Mexico  had  treated  our  demands,  and  the  correspond 
ing  responses  of  both  Houses  of  Congress  in  1837  and  1838,  Mexico 
had  reason  to  suppose  that  the  cup  of  forbearance  was  well  nigh  exhaust 
ed,  and  that  the  United  States  would  no  longer  submit  to  the  daily 
repetition  of  her  outrages,  and  the  evasions  with  which  every  call  upon 
her  for  justice  was  uniformly  met.  Under  this  apprehension,  she  de 
spatched  a  minister  to  the  United  States,  for  the  ostensible  purpose  of 
arranging  the  causes  of  controversy.  Mr.  Martinez  arrived  in  the 
United  States  in  October,  1837,  having  left  Mexico  a  very  short  time 
after  the  promulgation  of  the  decree  of  the  Mexican  government  of  May, 
1837,  so  severely  and  justly  commented  on  by  the  Committee  of  Foreign 
Relations,  in  July,  1838.  It  clearly  appears,  from  these  facts,  that 
while,  on  the  one  hand,  the  Executive  and  Congress  of  Mexico  were 
proclaiming  at  home  that  the  United  States  were  the  offending  party, 
whose  continued  aggressions  must  be  met  by  a  prohibition  of  commercial 
intercourse,  and  even  more  hostile  measures,  the  same  government  was 
apparently  yielding  to  the  importunate  demands  of  the  United  States, 
and  sending  a  minister  for  the  single  purpose  of  making  arrangements 
for  the  wrongs  she  had  herself  perpetrated.  A  more  palpable  evidence 
of  insincerity  and  duplicity  can  with  difficulty  be  conceived.  It  was, 
however,  only  characteristic  of  all  that  followed. 

Although  Mr.  Martinez  reached  Washington  in  October,  1837,  and 
the  ostensible  object  of  his  mission  was  to  form  a  treaty  for  the  adjust- 


109 

ment  of  our  complaints  against  his  government ;  yet  it  was  not  until 
the  9th  July,  183S,  that  he  received  powers  authorizing  him  to  conclude 
and  sign  the  treaty  by  which  that  object  was  to  be  accomplished.  (Doc. 
252,  H.  of  Reps.,  25th  Congress,  3d  sess.) 

These  circumstances  were  ominous  of  what  was  to  follow.  On  the 
10th  September,  1838,  a  convention  was  signed  between  Mr.  Forsyth, 
the  American  Secretary  of  State,  and  the  Mexican  minister,  (ibid,  p.  27). 
The  twelfth  Article  of  this  convention  provided,  that  the  ratifications 
should  be  exchanged  within  the  period  of  five  months  from  this  signa 
ture.  It  was  duly  ratified  by  the  United  States  ;  but  the  time  stipulated 
was  permitted  by  Mexico  to  expire  without  a  correspondent  act  on  her 
part.  This  omission  was  never  satisfactorily  explained  ;  for  the  pre 
tence  set  up,  that  the  King  of  Prussia  had  declined  to  act  as  umpire, 
was  not  only  a  most  preposterous  pretext,  but  no  doubt  now  exists  that 
it  was  equally  false.  No  credence  was  ever  given  to  it  by  the  American 
government.  Thus  is  furnished  additional  evidence  of  the  habitual  bad 
faith  of  this  nation,  who  arrogates  to  herself,  in  her  conduct  towards  us, 
an  exclusive  claim  to  fidelity  to  her  engagements. 

On  the  llth  April,  1839,  the  United  States  once  more  assented  to  a 
pacific  arrangement  of  this  subject,  by  signing  a  new  convention.  The 
14th  Article  provided,  that  the  ratification  should  be  exchanged  within 
twelve  months  from  the  date  of  the  signature,  or  sooner  if  possible. 
Yet  the  procrastinating  and  dilatory  course  of  Mexico  once  more  was 
manifested.  It  would  have  been  dangerous  again  to  permit  this  treaty 
to  expire  from  her  omission  to  perfect  it ;  but  her  action  was  so  long- 
delayed,  that  the  ratifications  were  exchanged  only  as  late  as  the  8th 
April,  1840.  Three  days  more  delay  would  have  rendered  the  whole  a 
nullity. 


No.  X. 

WE  have  arrived  at  the  period  when  the  convention  of  1839  became 
solemnized  and  perfected,  by  the  exchange  of  ratifications  on  the  8th  of 
April,  1840. 

It  now  becomes  our  duty  to  exhibit  the  course  which  Mexico  pur 
sued,  to  prevent  this  treaty  from  fulfilling  the  hopes  which  had  been 
entertained  by  the  parties  whose  claims  were  provided  'for  in  it.  Every 
artifice  which  the  most  refined  ingenuity  could  invent,  was  resorted  to  ; 
every  embarrassment  was  thrown  in  the  way  of  the  claimants  ;  every 
delay  in  the  progress  of  the  business  of  the  board  was  interposed  ; 


110 

every  quibble  was  employed  to  prevent  the  course  of  justice  ;  and,  un 
fortunately,  these  machinations  proved  but  too  successful. 

The  third  Article  provided,  that  the  board  of  commissioners  created 
under  it,  should  meet  in  the  city  of  Washington,  within  three  months 
after  the  exchange  of  the  ratifications.  This  was  the  first  act  to  be 
done.  The  time  was  duly  notified,  and  the  day  fixed  pursuant  to  the 
treaty  was  the  7th  of  July.  This  provision  of  the  convention  was 
broken  by  Mexico.  The  commissioners  were  not  appointed  by  her 
until  the  20th  of  June,  and  did  not  reach  Washington  until  the  13th 
August.  The  government  of  the  United  States  had  then  a  perfect  right 
to  declare  the  whole  arrangement  at  an  end. 

The  commissioners,  however,  assembled  on  the  17th  August ;  and, 
by  the  terms  of  the  treaty,  their  functions  were  to  expire  in  eighteen 
months  from  the  time  of  the  meeting  of  the  board.  It  became  a  matter 
of  some  moment  to  Mexico,  so  to  manage  matters,  that  as  large  a  por 
tion  of  the  time  should  be  wasted  as  possible,  and  as  little  left  for  the 
actual  transaction  of  business.  The  report  of  the  American  Commis 
sioners,  transmitted  by  the  President  to  Congress,  June  13,  1842,  (Sen. 
Doc.  320,  27th  Cong.,  2d  sess.,)  will  show  how  faithfully  and  exclu 
sively  these  objects  were  pursued,  and  how  successfully  they  were 
accomplished.  It  was  not  until  the  28th  of  December,  1840 — more 
than  four  months  after  the  first  meeting  of  the  board — that  the  first 
cause  was  brought  before  it  for  a  hearing  upon  its  merits.  (Sen.  Doc. 
64,  27th  Cong.,  1st  sess.).  Nearly  one  fourth  of  the  entire  period 
allotted  for  its  existence  had  been  consumed,  before  one  step  had  been 
made  in  the  actual  business  for  which  it  had  been  created  ;  and  on  the 
26th  of  May,  1841 — five  months  later,  and  when  more  than  half  the 
time  during  which  it  \vas  to  continue  had  expired — but  twelve  cases  had 
been  definitely  adjusted. 

In  the  conduct  of  the  business,  the  Mexicans  exhibited  a  disposition 
to  thwart  its  progress  in  every  conceivable  mode.  No  rules  or  regula 
tions  were  adopted  for  the  transaction  of  business  ;  no  form  prescribed 
for  the  claimants  to  pursue  in  the  presentation  of  their  cases  ;  in  fact, 
they  were  utterly  precluded  from  "  all  access  to  it,  in  person  or  by  their 
agents  ;  and  even  the  right  to  present  or  transmit  directly  to  it  any 
paper,  document,  or  written  proofs,"  (ibid).  These  measures  were 
resisted  and  combatted  by  the  American  members  of  the  board,  with 
equal  earnestness  and  ability.  They  "  considered  them  as  erroneous, 
and  they  believed  that  the  adoption  of  them  would  be  very  prejudicial, 
if  not  entirely  destructive,  to  the  interests  of  the  complainants."  The 
very  constitution  of  the  board,  composed  of  two  representatives  of  each 
country,  precluded  the  possibility  of  arriving  at  anv  satisfactory  result ; 


Ill 

and  the  Mexicans  would  have  been  completely  successful  in  the  accom 
plishment  of  all  their  designs,  and  would  have  prevented  a  decision  in 
any  one  case,  but  that  the  American  members  of  the  board,  "  seeing  no 
prospect  of  coming  to  an  agreement  on  this  important  point,  and  it  not 
being  one  which,  according  to  the  provisions  in  the  convention,  could 
be  submitted  to  the  umpire,"  acquiesced  in  a  wrong  which  they  had  no 
power  to  prevent  or  redress,  "  under  an  apprehension  that  the  objects  of 
the  two  governments  in  instituting  the  commission  "  would  be  defeated. 
This  was  done  so  as  to  leave  it  to  the  claimants,  "  at  their  option,  to 
avail  themselves  of  the  circuitous  mode  of  getting  their  cases  before  the 
board."  The  American  Commissioners  inform  their  government,  that 
"  as  all  the  efforts  of  the  undersigned  to  procure  for  them  (the  claimants) 
the  exercise  of  their  just  rights  had  been  unavailing,  and  to  insist  upon 
its  being  assented  to  by  their  colleagues  would  have  rendered  the  con 
vention  entirely  abortive,  the  undersigned  consented  to  proceed  in  the 
business  for  which  the  board  was  organized,  without  obtaining  from 
their  colleagues,  a  recognition  of  the  obvious  right  of  the  claimants  of  a 
direct  access  to  the  board." — (Ibid.) 

What  were  the  prospects  of  a  fair  and  impartial  hearing  before  a 
tribunal  to  which  the  complaining  party  was  prohibited  access,  either  in 
person  or  by  his  agents — where  no  written  communication  from  him 
would  be  received — where  he  could  present  no  evidence  to  substantiate 
his  claim,  no  argument  to  establish  his  rights— ?where  testimony  against 
him  was  received  which  he  was  not  allowed  to  know  of,  and  reasons 
assigned  for  rejecting  his  demands  which  he  was  forbidden  to  hear — 
may  well  be  conceived  by  all  who  have  experience  in  judicial  matters. 

The  subject  was  brought  under  the  notice  of  the  government  as  early 
as  October,  1840,  by  some  of  the  parties,  in  a  memorial,  of  which  we 
shall  present  an  extract : 

"  In  the  first  place,  we  would  suggest  whether  the  entire  design  and 
object  of  the  government  of  the  United  States  has  not  been  evaded,  or 
counteracted,  by  that  of  Mexico.  No  doubt  exists  in  our  minds,  that 
our  own  government,  in  the  convention  with  Mexico,  designed  to  create 
a  judicial  tribunal,  which  should,  under  all  the  high  sanctions  of  the 
judicial  character,  examine  into  and  adjudicate  upon  the  merits  of  the 
several  claims  which  might  be  submitted  to  its  decision.  The  uniform 
practice  in  similar  cases,  the  language  of  the  convention  itself,  the 
phraseology  of  the  act  of  Congress  which  was  passed  to  carry  it  into 
effect,  and  the  clear  and  distinct  communication  of  this  design  throughout 
the  negotiations  which  terminated  in  this  arrangement,  one  and  all,  are 
too  plain  to  admit  of  a  doubt  upon  this  subject. 

"  Such,  however,  we  apprehend,  was  not  the  design  of  the  Mexican 


112 

government ;  and  such,  unquestionally,  is  not  the  view  taken  of  the 
matter  by  the  Mexican  commissioners.  The  journals  of  the  board  show 
that,  upon  this  point,  a  wide  and  essential  (and,  we  believe,  an  irrecon- 
cileable)  difference  subsists  between  the  members.  The  Mexican 
commissioners,  if  we  are  correctly  informed,  refuse  to  consider  the  board 
as  possessing  the  character  of  a  judicial  tribunal,  or  as  invested  with  its 
functions  ;  they  refuse  to  recognize  it  as  created  for  the  purpose  of 
investigating  the  cases  in  conformity  with  the  principles  which  must 
necessarily  regulate  such  bodies  ;  they  refuse  to  permit  the  parties  to 
appear  before  them,  in  person  or  by  attorney,  to  exhibit  their  own  cases, 
apply  their  own  testimony,  and  hear  the  allegations  and  evidence  which 
may  be  adduced  against  them  ;  they  refuse  to  make  and  enounce  such 
rules  and  regulations  as  every  properly-constituted  judicial  tribunal  must 
necessarily  have,  to  govern  its  own  proceedings,  and  to  guide  the  action 
of  the  parties  litigant.  A  preliminary  difficulty  is  thus  presented,  which, 
in  the  opinion  of  the  claimants,  threatens  to  render  the  whole  convention 
nugatory,  and,  indeed,  worse  than  useless." 

Another  peculiarity  characterized  the  proceedings  of  Mexico,  in  the 
execution  of  this  convention,  which  indicates  an  entire  departure,  as 
well  from  good  faith  as  from  the  most  obvious  principles  of  justice.  By 
the  first  Article  of  the  treaty  of  1839,  it  was  expressly  required,  that  "  the 
said  commissioners  should  be  sworn  impartially  to  examine  and  decide 
upon  the  said  claims,  according  to  such  evidence  as  shall  be  laid  before 
them"  by  the  parties  respectively.  Before  the  signature  of  the  treaty, 
in  answer  to  a  suggestion  of  Mr.  Martinez,  Mr.  Forsyth  remarked,  that, 
"  as  the  commission  will  be  a  sort  of  joint  judicial  tribunal,  it  does  not 
appear  to  be  proper  that  there  should  be  instructions  to  it  from  the 
Executive  of  either  country."  This  declaration  was  tacitly  concurred 
in,  and  most  faithfully  adhered  to  by  the  United  States.  Mexico,  how 
ever,  insidiously  disregarded  this  at  least  implied  pledge.  The  very 
commissions  issued  by  her  government  required  each  of  her  representa 
tives  to  execute  his  functions,  "  in  entire  conformity  with  the  instructions 
that  are  issued  to  him  for  the  better  execution  of  so  important  a  commis 
sion."  That  such  instructions  were,  in  fact,  given  and  followed,  the 
conduct  of  these  individuals  furnished  the  most  pregnant  evidence.  But 
it  is  now  placed  beyond  the  reach  of  doubt,  by  the  testimony  of  a  com 
petent  and  well-informed  witness,  who  says,  that  "  while  in  Mexico,  I 
was  led  to  believe,  from  intimations  which  I  received  from  a  reliable 
source,  that  the  commissioners  appointed  on  the  part  of  Mexico,  under 
the  late  convention,  had  instructions  to  render  the  convention  abortive, 
by  the  delay  and  procrastination  of  the  business  of  the  board,  beyond  the 
time  limited  in  the  convention  for  the  adjustment  of  said  claims.  I 


113 

believe  that  such  instructions  were  given — not  in  writing,  but  verbally 
— by  those  intrusted  at  the  time  with  the  Mexican  government."  "  I 
am  not  at  liberty  to  disclose  the  source  from  which  I  obtained  this 
information,  but  I  believe  it  to  be  entitled  to  every  confidence."  With 
great  moderation  of  language  did  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Relations, 
in  their  report  of  the  27th  of  August,  1842,  express  themselves  on  this 
point.  They  say,  that  they  "  cannot  but  perceive  that  the  instructions 
under  which  those  commissioners  acted,  and  the  course  they  pursued,  in 
the  organization,  proceedings,  and  final  action  of  the  commission,  were 
of  most  questionable  validity,  and  operated  to  the  serious  injury  of  the 
parties  interested,  so  as  to  impair,  if  not  to  defeat,  many  of  the  beneficial 
purposes  contemplated  by  the  convention."  The  Committee  further 
expresses  its  opinion,  that  this,  with  others  connected  with  the  same 
subject,  "  are  questions,  in  their  present  stage,  for  the  consideration  of 
the  Executive,  and  for  negotiation  between  the  two  governments." 

This  subject  was  adverted  to  in  the  communication  already  cited  from 
some  of  the  claimants  to  the  Department  of  State,  of  October  10,  1840. 
It  is  there  said  :  "  The  claimants  have  no  means  of  knowing  whether 
the  instructions  accompanying  the  powers  under  which  the  Mexican 
commissioners  act,  and  which,  according  to  our  understanding,  constitute 
an  essential  part  of  those  powers,  have  been  in  any  way  communicated 
to  our  government.  It  does,  however,  appear  to  them,  in  the  absence 
of  any  information  on  this  point,  that  it  is  contrary  to  every  idea  they 
have  ever  attached  to  a  judicial  tribunal,  that  the  judges  should  be  com 
missioned  to  decide  in  conformity  with  instructions  given  by  one  of  the 
parties  litigant,  and  that  such  instructions  should  furnish  the  measure  of 
their  powers.  Nor  is  this  apparent  incongruity  diminished  by  the  fact, 
that  a  moiety  of  the  court  is  required  to  act  under  powers,  and  its  judi 
cial  discretion  is  to  be  guided  by  rules,  which  their  associates  neither 
know  nor  recognize.  Unless,  therefore,  these  anomalies,  thus  exhibited 
on  the  face  of  the  documents,  and  illustrated  by  the  proceedings  of  the 
board,  shall  have  been  obviated  by  other  circumstances  unknown  to  the 
claimants,  we  would  respectfully  suggest  to  the  consideration  of  the 
Executive,  whether  there  does  not  exist  an  inherent  and  vital  defect  in 
the  organization  of  this  tribunal,  rendering  it  wholly  incompetent  to  the 
performance  of  the  duties  imposed  on  it  by  the  terms  and  provisions  of 
the  convention  ;  whether  this  defect  has  been  the  result  of  mere  inad 
vertence  ;  or  whether  it  does  not  indicate,  on  the  part  of  the  Mexican 
government,  a  want  of  that  frankness  and  candor  which  we  had  a  right 
to  anticipate  at  its  hands  ?" 

Here  is  presented  another  specimen  of  the  solicitude  of  Mexico  faith 
fully  to  adhere  to  her  engagements  ! 
8 


No.  XI. 

MUCH  of  what  has  been  said  on  the  two  first  classes  of  the  claims  of 
citizens  of  the  United  States  against  Mexico,  is  equally  applicable  to  the 
third.  These  are  those  in  which  the  examination  was  not  fully  com 
pleted,  or  was  altogether  prevented,  and  were  therefore  left  unadjudi- 
cated,  in  consequence  either  of  Mexico  failing  to  produce  the  evidence 
which,  under  the  treaty,  she  was  bound  to  furnish,  or  because  the 
Mexican  Commissioners  persevered  in  carrying  out  the  instructions  of 
their  government,  to  resort  to  any  expedients  which  might  render  the 
convention  abortive. 

It  has  been  shown,  that  five  months,  out  of  the  eighteen  prescribed  for 
the  duration  of  the  board,  were  consumed  in  vain  efforts  to  establish 
some  rules  for  the  methodical  transaction  of  the  business  for  which  it 
had  been  created,  and  for  the  guidance  of  the  complainants  in  the  pre 
paration  and  exhibition  of  their  cases. 

In  their  communication  of  March  2,  1842,  to  the  Secretary  of  State, 
the  American  Commissioners  say :  "  It  is  very  certain  that  all  the 
objects  contemplated  by  the  convention  have  not  been  fully  accom 
plished.  A  number  of  important  claims,  coming  within  the  cognizance 
of  the  commission,  have  not  been  adjusted.  Upon  whom  rests  the 
responsibility  of  this  partial  failure,  is  a  question  not  to  be  settled  by  the 
assertion  or  belief  of  ourselves,  or  of  our  late  colleagues,  but  by  an  ap 
peal  to  the  facts  recorded  in  the  minutes  of  the  board." — Doc.  320,  pp. 
195,  196.  "  To  this  long  delay,  in  the  first  place,  in  determining  upon 
any  mode  whatever,  by  which  the  business  of  the  board  could  be  con 
ducted,  and  then  in  the  indirect  and  circuitous  manner  to  which  the 
claimants  were  eventually  obliged  to  resort,  for  the  purpose  of  getting 
their  papers  and  documents  before  the  commissioners,  is,  in  our  opinion, 
to  be  attributed,  in  some  measure,  the  failure  of  the  commission  to 
examine  all  the  cases  before  it,  and  to  present  them  to  the  umpire  in 
season  for  his  decision  thereon.  Whatever  detriment  has  resulted  from 
this  cause,  must  be  attributed  to  such  of  the  commissioners  as  erred  in 
their  construction  of  the  convention." 

In  reference  to  some  particular  cases,  these  gentlemen  employ  lan 
guage  much  more  emphatic  and  accusatory.  They  specify  the  case  of 
the  Topaz,  in  which,  after  adverting  to  the  murder  of  the  captain  of  that 
vessel,  and  the  proceedings  at  Anahuac  growing  out  of  that  outrage,  and 
expressing  their  full  persuasion  "  that  the  whole  proceedings  at  Anahuac 
were  designed  to  cover  up  a  most  barbarous  and  cruel  transaction,"  they 
add  :  "  The  object  of  the  undersigned  in  commenting  upon  this  case,  is 


115 

not  to  present  its  merits,  but  only  to  show  the  true  cause  why  it  was 
not  finally  disposed  of."  "  If  the  Mexican  Commissioners  had  not  caused 
action  to  be  suspended  on  it  for  more  than  two  months,  and  down  to 
within  one  month  of  the  expiration  of  the  commission,  it  would  doubt 
less  have  been  finally  disposed  of."  "  A  like  delay,  for  the  same  cause, 
took  place  in  respect  to  the  several  claims  growing  out  of  the  seizure  of 
the  Julius  Csesar,  Champion,  and  Louisiana,  the  condemnation  of  the 
two  former,  and  the  imprisonment  of  the  persons  on  board  them." 
"  But  for  the  suspension  of  action  upon  these  cases,  at  the  instance,  and 
by  the  votes,  of  the  Mexican  Commissioners,  on  the  allegation  that 
they  had  been  withdrawn  from  the  cognizance  of  the  board,*  they  doubt 
less  would  have  been  sent  to  the  umpire  in  season  to  have  received  his 
final  judgment  thereon." — Ibid,  page  253. 

Another  instance,  of  a  similar  character,  is  presented  in  the  case  of 
Mr.  William  S.  Parrott,  which  the  American  Commissioners  made  the 
subject  of  a  special  reportr  in  which  they  fully  demonstrate  that  Mexico 
violated  the  terms  of  the  convention,  by  witholding  papers,  "  by  which 
an  express  stipulation  in  the  convention,  that  government  had  come 
under  an  obligation"  to  furnish,  and  by  transmitting  such  "  as  appeared 
on  the  face  of  them  imperfect,  and,  in  some  material  points,  contradic 
tory."  They  conclude  their  observations  on  this  case  in  the  following 
terms :  "  Finally,  it  appears  quite  evident  to  the  undersigned,  that  the 
documents  which  were  demanded  and  not  furnished,  were  such  as  the 
government  of  Mexico  was  bound,  under  the  fourth  Article  of  the  con 
vention,  to  furnish ;  that  the  requisition  was  sent  out  at  the  earliest 
period  at  which  it  could  have  been  sent ;  and  that  the  want  of  those 
documents,  for  not  furnishing  which  no  adequate  excuse  has  been  given, 
is  the  cause  why  a  final  disposition  was  not  made  of  this  claim  of  Mr. 
Parrott." 

Such  was  the  open  and  undisguised  infraction  of  treaties  and  perver 
sion  of  justice  in  this  last  cited  case,  that  Mr.  Upshur,  in  his  despatch  of 
the  25th  of  July,  1843,  (Doc.  158)  thus  adverts  to  it :  "The  conduct 
of  Mexico,  as  it  seems  to  me,  had  made  it  the  duty  of  the  United  States 
to  insist  on  prompt  and  specific  relief,  so  far  as  this  case  is  concerned. 
She  has  rendered  herself  liable  to  the  charge  of  having  broken  her  faith, 
and  disregarded  her  obligations.  She  has  not  complied  with  a  single 
stipulation  of  the  fourth  Article  of  the  convention  of  1839.  She  has  not 
even  professed  to  have  produced  a  large  number  of  the  documents  called 
for,  and  many  of  those  which  she  did  produce  were  either  imperfect  or 
grossly  falsified.  The  American  Commissioners  complained  of  this,  but 
without  redress  ;  and  to  add  to  the  injuries  and  contemptuous  conduct 

*  All  of  which  was  a  sheer  fabrication. 


116 

of  the  Mexican  Commissioners,  they  took  back  with  them,  against  the 
assent  and  remonstrances  of  the  American  Commissioners,  and  of  the 
Secretary  of  State,  all  the  falsified  and  imperfect  documents  which  they 
had  submitted.  All  this  will  fully  appear  from  the  enclosed  extracts 
from  the  proceedings  of  the  board.  It  is  quite  evident  that,  so  far  as 
this  claimant  is  concerned,  he  can  have  little  hope  of  success  before  a 
new  commission.  He  must  necessarily  rely  on  the  same  evidence 
which  he  has  heretofore  applied  for  in  vain,  and  he  must  make  his 
demand  on  the  same  government  which  has  heretofore  treated  the  same 
demand  with  neglect  and  contempt." 

In  reference,  then,  to  this  third  class  of  cases,  if  would  seem  that 
Mexico  can  have  no  further  claim,  on  the  score  of  justice,  to  ask  to  be 
again  heard.  She  has  contemptuously  declined  to  submit  her  cause  to 
a  tribunal  of  her  own  appointment.  She  has  deliberately  labored,  by 
the  most  dishonorable  machinations,  to  defeat  the  very  treaty  to  which 
she  had  set  her  seal,  and  to  the  faithful  performance  of  which  she  was 
bound  by  all  the  obligations  of  official  and  national  honor.  She  has 
endeavored  to  impose  on  this  tribunal,  false  and  forged  testimony,  and 
then  purloined  the  very  documents  by  which  the  truth  of  this  accusation 
was  to  be  established.  It  would,  indeed,  be  a  gross  violation  of  justice 
to  compel  the  claimants  to  encounter  a  second  time  the  expense  and 
labor  of  producing  all  their  testimony,  and  of  again  trying  their  cases  de 
novo.  It  would  be  equivalent  to  a  deliberate  surrender  of  their  rights. 

It  seems  clearly  to  result,  from  these  facts,  that  the  failure  on  the 
part  of  the  late  board  to  adjust  definitely  all  the  cases  which  were 
brought  before  it,  is  imputable  to  the  bad  faith  and  disingenuous  artifices 
of  Mexico  ;  and  that,  in  the  particular  instances  which  have  been  de 
signated,  specific  circumstances  of  fraud  and  falsehood  have  been  fixed 
and  established  against  her ; — that,  to  subject  the  claimants  to  renewed 
litigation  before  another  similarly  constituted  tribunal,  would  be  equally 
unjust  to  them,  and  disgraceful  to  the  nation.  The  honor  of  the  Ame 
rican  government  has  been  solemnly  pledged,  and  it  is  with  confidence 
hoped  it  will  not  be  sullied. 

The  last  and  only  remaining  class  of  cases  comprehends  such  as  were 
not  submitted  to  the  last  board.  The  convention  of  1839  limited  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  tribunal  which  it  provided,  to  cases,  statements  of 
which  had  been  presented  to  the  Department  of  State,  or  the  diplomatic 
agent  of  the  United  States  in  Mexico,  prior  to  its  signature.  It  conse 
quently  excluded  all  claims  posterior  to  the  llth  of  April,  1839,  and 
some  of  an  earlier  date.  During  the  last  six  j'ears,  numerous  cases 
have  occurred  equally  demanding  reparation.  It  is  hoped  they  will  not 
be  allowed  to  grow  hoary  with  antiquity  before  they  shall  be  disposed  of. 


117 

It  has  been  shown  that  there  is  no  precedent  in  our  history  which 
warrants  the  government,  under  the  like  or  analogous  circumstances,  in 
submitting  the  claims  of  its  citizens  to  a  mixed  tribunal.  It  may  well 
be  questioned  whether  the  spirit  of  our  institutions  does  not  prohibit  it, 
unless  with  the  consent  of  the  claimants  themselves.  However  this 
may  be,  the  history  of  the  past  shows  the  inutility  and  mockery  of  any 
such  plan  of  adjustment  with  such  a  people  and  such  a  government  as 
Mexico.  The  same  disregard  of  justice  which  marked  her  constant 
violations  of  private  right,  equally  characterize  her  in  her  judicial  admin 
istration.  She  is  as  reluctant  to  make  retribution  for  the  wrongful  acts 
she  has  perpetrated,  as  she  was  unscrupulous  in  the  commission  of  those 
outrages. 

The  matter  is  now  in  the  hands  of  the  government ;  and  the  unfortu 
nate  victims  of  Mexican  cruelty  and  Mexican  duplicity  will  not  permit 
themselves  to  doubt  that,  as  their  rights  are  now  identified  with  the 
national  faith  and  national  honor,  those  rights  will  be  enforced,  and  that 
honor  be  preserved  unsullied. 


No.  XII. 

IT  is  presumed  that  no  necessity  exists  to  adduce  further  proof  to 
establish  the  charge  against  Mexico,  of  being  equally  faithless  in  the 
fulfilment  of  her,  treaty  engagements,  or  of  the  obligations  imposed  by 
the  law  of  nations,  and  by  the  code  of  personal  honor.  Her  highest 
functionaries  have  been  shown  to  be  guilty  of  an  open  disregard  of  truth, 
and  of  having  resorted  to  the  most  contemptible  and  disgraceful  crimes 
known  on  the  Old  Bailey  calendar.  Should  additional  testimony  be 
required  to  fill  up  the  measure  of  official  and  national  turpitude,  ample 
materials  exist  in  the  archives  of  the  board  of  commissioners.  It  there 
distinctly  and  repeatedly  appears,  that  Mexico  transmitted  spurious  and 
forged  documents  to  the  board,  as  legal  evidence  in  cases  before  it ; 
that  her  commissioners  withdrew,  from  the  public  records  of  the  board, 
and  under  false  pretences,  testimony  which  had  been  laid  before  it  for 
its  action ;  that  this  was  done  against  the  remonstrances  of  their  col 
leagues,  and  in  contempt  of  the  decided  objections  of  the  American  Sec 
retary  of  State.  These  points,  however,  have  been  so  frequently 
brought  to  the  notice  of  Congress  and  the  nation,  that  they  must  be 
familiar  to  all  who  have  given  any  attention  to  the  history  of  the  rela 
tions  between  the  two  countries. 

The  far  more  important  inquiry  is,  what  is  the  course  which  it  be- 


118 

comes  the  right  and  duty  of  the  government  of  the  United  States  to 
pursue  in  reference  to  the  claims  of  our  citizens  upon  that  nation  ?  The 
question  of  duty  has  been  long  since  settled.  Without  adverting  to 
other  instances  in  which  it  has  been  fully  recognised  by  the  government 
itself,  in  the  most  solemn  and  authentic  form,  a  reference  to  the  very 
explicit  language  employed  by  Mr.  Upshur  in  his  despatch  of  July  25, 
1843,  may  suffice  :  "  The  honor  of  the  government  is  pledged  to  our 
own  people  for  the  diligent  and  proper  prosecution  of  those  claims. 
Mexico  can  no  longer,  consistently  with  her  own  honor,  or  the  rights  of 
our  citizens,  or  what  is  due  to  this  government,  seek  to  delay  the  execu 
tion  of  what  justice  so  plainly  requires  at  her  hands."  "  Atonement 
should  have  been  made  long  ago  for  the  numerous  and  flagrant  wrongs 
done  by  that  power  to  citizens  of  this  country.  Unnecessary  delays 
must  not  be  submitted  to,  nor  will  slight  excuses  he  received." 

Two  years  have  elapsed  since  this  declaration  was  made.  "  Unne 
cessary  delays"  have  been  "submitted  to,"  and  "slight  excuses"  have 
not  been  "  received,"  only  because  none,  however  slight,  have  been 
offered.  Eighteen  months  have  passed  since  Mexico  has  had  in  her 
hands  a  treaty  sanctioned  by  the  Executive  and  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  which  falls  short — very  far  short — of  carrying  out  all  the 
acknowledged  obligations  of  our  government.  The  minister  who  nego 
tiated  it,  in  several  important  particulars  deviated  from  his  instructions, 
and  always  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  claimants.  Its  terms  and  stipula 
tions,  if  adopted,  would  work  the  most  manifest  injustice  to  the  claim 
ants,  and  are  such  that  nothing  but  despair  of  ever  attaining  justice  could 
induce  them  to  acquiesce  in.  For  eighteen  months  Mexico  has  omitted 
to  give  it  her  ratification.  It  has  become  a  caput  mortuum;  and  no 
excuse,  no  apology,  no  explanation  has  been  tendered  to  an  insulted 
nation  for  this  act  of  contemptuous  disregard  of  her  most  conciliatory  and 
yielding  offers.  The  honor,  the  dignity  of  the  nation,  imperatively 
demands  that  no  similar  proposition  should  be  again  entertained.  The 
experience  of  the  past  has  painfully  and  severely  taught  the  claimants, 
(and  it  is  hoped  the  lessons  have  not  been  thrown  away  upon  the  gov 
ernment),  that,  under  such  a  convention  as  that  p-ojected,  the  interests 
of  the  one  would  be  sacrificed,  and  the  hoi, Or  of  the  other  prostituted. 
Under  no  circumstances,  should  such  an  arrangement  be  again  sanc 
tioned  ;  nor,  unless  under  other  and  far  better  guarantees  than  such 
as  appear  in  that  projet,  should  any  mixed  commission  be  again  estab 
lished. 

What  course,  then,  is  left  open  ?  The  claims  against  Mexico  may 
now  be  arranged  under  four  distinct  classes  :  First,  such  as  have  been 
already  adjudicated  by  the  former  board.  These  may  be  recognized  as 


119 

settled  definitely,  excepting  so  far  as  fraud  and  forged  papers,  and  sup 
pressions  of  evidence,  in  derogation  of  treaty  engagements,  can  be  shown. 
Secondly,  such  as  have  passed  through  the  ordeal  of  a  full  investigation 
in  the  presence  of  the  commissioners  of  both  parties.  Thirdly,  those 
which,  owing  to  the  impediments  interposed  by  the  government  of  Mex 
ico,  or  her  functionaries,  were  left  unadjusted.  Fourthly,  those  which 
were  never  exhibited  to  the  former  board,  whether  they  occurred  before 
or  since  the  time  limited  by  the  convention  of  1839. 

The  first  class  has  been  settled  by  the  adjudications  of  the  board  ; 
and,  although  much  injustice  has  been  wrought  by  those  decisions,  they 
should,  perhaps,  be  allowed  to  stand,  unless  the  claimants  can  establish, 
by  distinct  testimony,  that  injustice  has  been  perpetrated  through  false 
or  forged  papers,  or  by  the  withholding  of  evidence  which  Mexico  was 
bound  to  furnish.  Three  years  and  a  half  have  elapsed  since  the  last  of 
these  cases  was  decided.  By  the  convention  of  September,  183S,  it  was 
agreed  that  Mexico  should  forthwith  pay  the  whole  sum  awarded  against 
her,  by  furnishing  such  an  amount  of  her  evidences  of  public  debt  as 
should  realize  in  the  London  market  whatever  might  be  found  due  by 
her.  This  arrangement  was,  as  we  have  seen,  allowed  to  expire  by 
the  non-ratification  of  the  convention  by  Mexico.  The  substituted 
treaty  of  1839  provided  that  Mexico  should  pay  the  sums  awarded  in 
treasury  notes,  which  should  be  receivable  at  her  custom-houses  in 
payment  of  duties,  should  it  prove  inconvenient  for  her  to  pay  the  whole 
promptly  in  gold  or  silver.  At  her  solicitation,  and  for  her  accommoda 
tion,  by  the  convention  of  the  30th  January,  1843,  further  indulgence 
was  given.  She  was  allowed  until  April,  1843,  to  pay  the  arrearages 
of  interest ;  and  the  principal,  with  the  subsequently  accruing  interest, 
was  to  be  paid  within  five  years  from  that  date,  in  equal  quarterly  instal 
ments.  Three  of  these  instalments  were  paid  with  something  like  punc 
tuality.  Since  January,  1844,  not  a  farthing  has  been  paid  which  has 
ever  reached  the  claimants.  On  the  31st  July,  1845,  six  instalments 
will  be  in  arrear  to  them.  The  right  to  postponement  has  been  for 
feited  by  this  omission.  By  the  terms  of  the  convention  of  1843,  all  the 
internal  duties  of  the  nation  were  pledged  as  a  fund  for  these  payments  ; 
that  fund  has  been  divertp^  from  this  purpose,  and  thus  again  the  treaty 
has  been  broken.  The  claimants  have  the  right  to  insist  and  call  upon 
their  government,  under  these  circumstances,  to  demand  the  prompt 
liquidation  of  what  is  due  them.  As  Mexico  has  thought  proper  to  sus 
pend  all  diplomatic  relations  between  the  governments,  this  branch  of 
the  case  should  be  definitely  closed.  We  can  no  longer  call  upon  them 
for  their  quarterly  instalments. 

The  second  class  comprehends  cases  which  have  been  examined  by 


120 

the  joint  commission,  and  upon  which  both  parties  have  been  heard. 
The  reasons  of  the  one  for  allowing,  and  of  the  other  for  disallowing, 
have  been  fully  given.  The  diplomatic  intercourse  between  the  two 
governments  is  closed,  and  the  American  Executive  is  in  possession  of 
ample  materials  upon  which  its  judgment  can  be  exercised.  The  views 
and  opinions  of  the  able  men  who  represented  the  United  States  are 
before  them ;  the  objections  of  Mexico  are  fully  stated.  Both  parties 
have  been  heard — so  far,  at  least,  as  the  American  commissioners  can 
be  understood  as  representing  the  claimants.  Every  solemnity  has  been 
observed — every  objection  heard  ;  and  the  parties  cannot  but  hope  and 
expect  that  this  government  will  recognise  as  final  and  conclusive  the 
judgment  of  those  whom  they  have  invested  with  these  high  functions. 
So  far  as  these  cases  have  thus  been  acted  on.  the  character  of  the  claim 
ought  to  be  considered  as  adjudicated,  and  the  amount  of  compensation 
settled  definitely  and  for  ever.  After  Mexico  has  pursued  the  course 
which  it  has  been  shown  she  has  done — after  she  has  abstracted  from  the 
archives  of  the  convention  the  evidence  upon  which  claims  were  sus 
tained — she  cannot,  with  any  show  of  justice  or  reason,  ask  to  be  at 
liberty  to  compel  the  parties  again  to  reproduce  that  testimony,  and 
prove  their  cases  over  again.  It  is  a  received  maxim  of  positive  law  in 
very  community  where  law  exists,  that  presumption  exists  in  odium  spo- 
liatoris.  In  every  aspect  in  which  the  case  can  be  viewed,  Mexico 
occupies  this  position.  She  was  the  spoliator  in  committing  the  original 
wrong.  She  is  the  spoliator  in  withholding  the  evidence  which  she  had 
solemnly  promised  to  furnish,  or  in  fabricating  false  testimony.  She 
is  the  spoliator  in  appropriating  to  herself  the  very  evidence  which  had 
been  produced  to  establish  her  responsibility. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 


LOAN  DEPT. 


This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


RECT>  LD    [  IMTFP.,  ,PPAPV 


DEC  4 


INTER-LIBRARY 

LQAji, 

Al  IP   1  A    IM7R. 

AUu  lU  nwo 

LD  21A-60m-3,'65 
(P2336slO)476B 

General  Library 
University  of  California 
Berkeley 

901 


CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


i£3$f¥i 
twMfeggi^ 


